- Coming up next on impact, - Somebody's hiding something.

- Wow.

Yeah.

All the game fish here that we all eat and love is contaminated.

These concentrations could absolutely raise people's risk for exposure to PFAS, and this has not been released to the public for more than a year and a half.

The state of Montana sat on a bombshell report that showed dangerous levels of PFAS in fish.

- I'm mad who stopped this report.

- Why did your office suppress the PFAS and fish tissue report?

Yeah, I have a bunch of people here that are waiting.

Thank you.

But nobody will call me back, so I can't get you.

That's next in a Montana PBS special investigation.

- Major funding for impact comes from the Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends, and values of importance to montanans Funding also comes from viewers like you who are friends of Montana PBS, Thank you.

Impact is an editorially independent production of Montana PBS reports.

Coverage decisions are made by our team of Montana based journalists.

For feedback, questions or ideas, email us impact@montanapbs.org.

- Welcome to impact.

I'm Anna Rau.

Three years after testing was conducted for toxic PFAS in Montana fish, state officials have finally released the report.

They released it just two and a half hours before the initial broadcast of the investigation you are about to see.

But that release doesn't change the fact that the report was suppressed for over a year while Montanans continue to eat potentially dangerous fish.

Here now is our original investigation shot and edited before the state released the report.

- My family, we eat, we eat like a lot of fish.

We eat a lot of walleye when, when they're spawning.

We were fishing last night and we caught quite a few.

So - Wilfred Lambert is a member of the Fort Pack tribes.

He, like many tribal members, grew up fishing the waters of Fort Pack Reservoir and the mighty Missouri.

- Everybody eats walleyes here on the reservation.

All the elders, I mean, if you filet it for them, they'll, they'll, they'll take it right away.

- Lambert's personal connection to the fish and the water here extends to his professional life as well, because when he is not fishing, he's serving as the director of Fort Peck Tribe's Office of Environmental Protection.

Watching over these precious resources, - Our whole goal is, is to protect our, our land for future generations.

- We always eat the fish that we catch in the Flathead.

On the other side of the state.

On Flathead Lake, retired fisheries scientist Dr.

Jay Barlow also appreciates the need to keep Montana's waters clean and its fish safe to eat.

How often would you say you fish and eat the fish?

- Whenever the, the fish are biting, and that's not all the time, but I try to fish every week.

We're usually catching the, the lake trout and in late July and August, the white fish, and they're both wonderful fish.

and we just love consuming them.

- Dr.

Barlow's expertise is in Ocean fisheries spending 41 years with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researching the impact of human activity on marine life.

So he tends to keep up on reading about contaminants in water and fish.

And one day he came across a research paper that detailed alarming levels of a chemical known as PFAS in freshwater fish across the nation.

- I read that report and was just shocked at how high the levels are.

It's it for people who like to eat freshwater fish, it probably is the major source of PFAS that they're getting in their diet.

- The median concentrations in the locally caught freshwater fish were over 200 times the median levels for the FDA testing of the commercial fish.

It was really high concentrations in this fish tissue.

- Sidney Evans is one of the authors of that research paper.

Dr.

Barlow read the publication was produced by the Environmental Working Group where Evans works as a data scientist.

She says, public response to the paper was immediate.

- It brought the issue of the contamination home to so many more people than had previously been reached by the research because it touches on so many people's lives.

The concentrations that of the PFAS that were in the fish has real impacts on blood serum levels of PFAS and inner bodies and the risks that go along with that.

- PFAS to the best of my knowledge as I sit here today, have been linked to different types of cancer, kidney cancer, and testicular cancer.

But there are emerging data for other types of cancer, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, bladder cancer.

And I know there are concerns in some impacted communities about rare types of cancers in children, especially brain cancers.

- Dr.

Jamie Dewitt is well acquainted with the laundry list of health effects linked to PFAS exposure as a toxicologist.

She began researching the family of more than 10,000 chemicals 20 years ago while working at the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Today she's the director of the Pacific Northwest Center for Translational Environmental Health Research, and she's a professor at Oregon State University.

Dr.

Dewitt says one of the most concerning things her lab discovered is that PFAS suppress our body's immune responses.

- Part of the immune system's job is to protect us from outside invaders.

But another really important function of the system is to cruise around our body looking for diseased or dying or injured cells.

Their job is to cordon off or kill those cells.

And when the immune system is suppressed, that function also is suppressed, which means that if there's a mutated cell that has the potential to become cancer, the immune system might miss it.

- Dr.

Dewitt adds that the human body cannot break down PFAS.

The entirely manmade chemicals are notoriously persistent.

Starting in the 1950s, PFAS were used as coatings on non-stick pans and stain resistant fabrics and carpets.

PFAS do not easily weather through heat, stress, wind or rain.

Instead, they accumulate in our environment, our food and our bodies.

- They can persist in the environment for many, many years.

They do tend to stay in our bodies for a long period of time.

Some PAS can stay in our bodies for maybe even 20 years, and that's just the half-life.

So that's how long it takes for half of the amount of that PFAS you have in your body to be slowly excreted across time.

- In 2024, the EPA recognized the extreme health dangers of certain types of PFAS by setting an extremely low drinking water standard for them, just four parts per trillion - Parts per trillion.

I I mean it, it is what it says it is, right?

It's one part, it's 1 trillion.

So for every, you know, a trillion molecules, there might be one of PFAS, roughly speaking, that is an infinitessimally small amount.

Yet that amount is enough to cause harm when the exposure is ongoing in long term.

- I know the measure, the values that have been measured in the Great Lakes have been on the order of 1000 to 10,000 times the safe allowable levels in drinking water.

And so, you know, eating one fish from the Great Lakes, you could consume more of these forever chemicals than you would eating, drinking tap water for an entire year.

And that's kind of scary because I don't eat just one fish every summer.

I don't know what the levels are in Flathead Lake and I wish I did.

- So what did you do?

- So I contacted Montana Department of Water Quality and I asked if there had been any testing done of fish in Montana and they said it was an ongoing project.

This was about May of 2024 that I first made this contact.

I'm a resident of Lake County, where I fish and consume a fair number of lake trout and white fish in Flathead Flathead Lake.

Has there been any test of these species in the lake for PFAS levels?

Have the tribes been informed of the potential health hazard of this source?

- It turns out Dr.

Barlow was onto something in the summer of 2023.

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Fish, wildlife and Parks tested for PFAS in fish tissue all across the state, including Flathead Lake.

We found out about that testing during research for another story on PFAS 3 years ago.

We asked the DEQ about the project during this 2024 interview with Senior Water Quality Monitoring scientist Abbie Ebert.

- We wanted to sample the water bodies that had detections of PFAS that also can support consumable sized fish.

And our fisheries often used by the public.

- Ebert told us that they had tested numerous fish and fish species from 13 different lakes, reservoirs, and rivers in Montana.

- We also have been corresponding with tribes through this process because all of these waters have either cultural or subsistence fishing fisheries importance to our tribes across the state.

- And so, even though this interview was nearly a year after many of the fish tissue tests were done, Ebert said that DEQ was not able to reveal any of the results yet.

And you can't tell me anything about what you guys found at this point.

- We can't tell you anything right now 'cause we're still going through like a lot of quality assurance review and, and determining like the toxicity work with the Fish Consumption Advisory Board.

- When is that report going to be done?

- So I'm hoping that we can get the report done sometime this summer.

- What did they say to your email?

- They said that the, the testing was ongoing and they were expecting to do a report on the levels of PFAS in the fish in Flathead Lake in the near future.

- When you heard DEQ was doing some testing, were you relieved?

- I was glad that the Department of Environmental Quality in Montana was going to do this and that I would be getting the results soon - By June.

Dr.

Barlow still had not received any results.

He reached out to Abbie Ebert to follow up.

- So this is the, the letter to Abbie Ebert.

I'm still interested in knowing if any fish have been analyzed for PFAS chemicals from Flathead Lake.

Do you know?

And if so, is there a report - Again, Ebert responded that the state was still analyzing the results and they hoped to have them available by late summer by November.

Dr.

Barlow had not heard anything from the DEQ.

He reached out one last time.

- I asked Do you have any updates or reports available yet on the PFAS levels?

Of fish in the Flathead drainage.

Last June you thought the information would be available in late summer?

Any reports, even technical would be welcome.

Best regards.

And this was written in November of the same year, 2024.

And the response was, I'm working on finalizing the report.

I will send it to you once it's published on DEQs website.

Thank you for checking in.

And that was in November of 2024.

- And did you ever receive anything?

- No, I never received anything after that.

- So it's over a year ago.

- Over a year ago.

And we still don't know levels of potentially dangerous chemicals in the fish that we're eating.

- How do you feel about that?

- I feel a little bit pissed off.

Really.

I think that somebody must be withholding the report.

'cause there's, there's no way that the, the report can be justifiably delayed this long unless somebody is, doesn't want to see it public.

- We also wondered where the results were in late January of 2025.

We filed a Freedom of Information request for both the data package and the associated report.

Nearly three weeks later, we were given a massive Excel spreadsheet full of rows and rows of data and obscure terms.

Notably missing from the document release was the all important report.

The analysis that DEQ scientists have been working so hard on and is key to understanding what all the numbers mean.

- If I'm given a data sheet with just raw data in it and I don't have context, I really don't know what I would do with it.

- How important is that report that contextualizes the data for the public?

- I think that is extremely important.

Having the context and then even having recommendations about what those values mean for how you should change your daily life is important.

- That translation is everything.

It's such an important part because we can have all the data in the world sitting out there and it doesn't mean anything unless we can condense it down into something that is understandable and digestible.

So knowing where the PFAS is in fish, who is it impacting?

Who needs to be careful or limit their intake?

The translation and the analysis of that data is what allows us to take action on these insights.

- We shared the complicated data package with Lambert at Fort Peck's office of Environmental Protection to get his reaction.

- It's a lot of numbers.

A lot of numbers.

It looks intimidating, a lot of scientific words that if you weren't in that field, you wouldn't know what they're talking about.

- Even without the report.

We managed to analyze the data ourselves and we found very concerning detection levels in fish from several important bodies of water across the state, including 18,000 parts per trillion of one P-F-A-S, P-F-O-A in the East Fork of the Gallatin and high levels of another P-F-A-S, P-F-O-S in fish from the Yellowstone, Missouri, and Fort Peck reservoir.

Remember, the drinking water limit is just four parts per trillion.

Evans believes we should be applying the same formula used for drinking water to set limits for fish consumption.

- You're consuming these substances and the impact is apples to apples.

It's raising the concentration of PFAS in your body.

Whether that is happening through drinking water or whether that's happening through fish consumption.

The end is the same.

- The EPA agrees.

In July of 2024, the agency posted new guidance that recommends states use the drinking water formula to also calculate fish consumption guidelines.

- No matter how it enters your body, it's gonna stay there.

And so it really doesn't, the concentration doesn't matter so much as the actual quantity that you consume.

- With numbers this alarming in the raw data, we wondered why hadn't this information been released widely?

Where is the accompanying report?

Why isn't there new fish consumption guidance?

So in October of 2025, we filed another sweeping freedom of information request for all emails, reports and documents surrounding the PFAS Fish tissue testing project.

In December, we received a huge trove of documents and some answers to our questions.

After months of sifting through thousands of emails, attachments and spreadsheets, we zeroed in on several documents.

The first was a simple two page chart that finally boils down all the data into the most concerning pertinent results.

Specifically the results for PFOS that were so high, they should trigger fish consumption advisories.

These numbers look small until they're converted to parts per trillion.

For example, 5.4 converts to 5,400 parts per trillion.

Do you wanna know what the results are for the PFAS testing?

- Absolutely.

- So good news, Flathead not detected by the bridge.

That's the good news.

First Flathead Lake in your summers not detected.

- That's fantastic news.

- But look how, how you were - Talking about, yeah, I'm - Subsistence fishing.

Look at Fort Pack.

- Oh my - And - That, so that's, that's 4,000 part per trillion.

Yes.

So that's a thousand times the level that would be allowed in, right.

Drinking water.

Right.

- Wow.

That's one of the ones that we eat too.

All I that sticks out big time.

This is pretty eye-opening here.

All, all our main fish, the catfish, the northern and the walleye are high numbered.

- Many of these, if a person were a frequent or even average consumer of fish, these concentrations are enough to raise their blood serum levels of PFAS.

- Yeah, this is kind of mind blowing.

You know, I mean, I wish I would've known about this before.

- So if they have these data, it would be probably advisable to put together a fish consumption advisory.

- But again, at the time, these interviews were done in March and April of 2026.

There was still no fish consumption advisory and no report had been released, even though it had been nearly three years since the tests were completed.

- This was done in 2023 and we haven't heard nothing about it.

I mean, come on.

I mean, yeah, this is pretty disheartening.

You know, - Behind the scenes though, DEQ scientists, including Abbie Ebert, were actually pushing hard for stringent new fish consumption advisories.

Proof of that was buried in the internal documents from our freedom of information request.

This stunning DEQ memo from the fall of 2024 detailed the scientist's efforts to protect tribes and anglers throughout the state.

- So the date is September 3rd, 2024.

- Fish Consumption Advisors are designed to protect pregnant women, women of childbearing, age, children, and adults who can consume, consume fish over a lifetime.

- The EPAs guidance uses the most up-to-date toxicity research and takes a conservative approach to protect human health.

- According to the memo, the DEQ and the State's Fish Consumption Advisory Board had decided to create interim fish consumption advisories using the EPAs newest guidance.

This would make Montana the first state to implement the stricter guidelines.

- Members of the board understood the consequences of the interim advisories and the broad impact on stakeholders, but are taking protective approach.

- There's a strong potential for broad do not consume advisories across the state that could impact tourism.

And the guiding industry - Tribal staff will be informed advisories and advised to consider creating PFOS Fish Consumption Advisory fact sheets geared towards their tribal communities.

Well now that just makes me wanna look at that document myself.

- That document attached to the memo revealed the proposed interim fish consumption advisories and they were bad news.

So this is the guidance that accompanied this memo.

- So the advisories for adult consumption would be in the Missouri River, either to completely avoid it as an adult or to eat one to four meals per month.

Fort Peck Reservoir.

Avoid, avoid, avoid - The term, avoid peppers.

The entire chart, including sections of the Missouri River Prickly, Pear Creek, Lake Helena, East Gallatin, and the Yellowstone River.

Perhaps the worst news of all though across the board avoids for the fish from Fort Peck.

- It's all avoid, I mean, them are all the fish that we I we fish for with my family.

I mean, that's what we eat.

And I didn't know all this stuff.

Now I don't think we're gonna eat anymore.

- What do you think, now that you've seen this and now that you've seen the DEQ had fish consumption advisories that are quite serious and would affect some very popular fishing areas, what do you think?

- I think this has to come out.

- How can they keep stuff like this quiet?

I mean, in their own conscience.

Me at me as I, I couldn't keep this stuff information quiet.

I would let as many people as because they're affecting our children.

- The internal documents show that the state was completely ready to release the information publicly in the fall of 2024, along with the stringent new interim fish consumption advisories.

The report was complete and there was even a communications plan and fact sheets all ready to go then for reasons that are unclear in the documents, all work on the project is suddenly halted in December of 2024.

As Montanans Lambert and Dr.

Barlow knew none of this information had ever been released.

But Sidney Evans based in DC and Dr.

Dewitt based in Oregon, had no idea.

The documents we handed them were not publicly available at the time we interviewed them.

So what would you say if I told you that that document you're holding in your hands and the advisories have never seen the light of day and they were completed in 2024?

- Why?

I wanna know why.

- And, and this has not been released in any way to the public through a website, through a forum, through a meeting, through a town meeting, nothing like that.

- Have you ever seen anything like this before?

- No.

In all my years working for the government, I never saw something, an obvious delay like this of the, of the release of information.

- I would wanna know why.

Why, why haven't you been sharing this information to the tribes?

- While we don't know who halted work on the project in December of 2024, the trove of emails does reveal who kept the key analytical report, the one that would've made sense of the data hidden from Montanans.

This string of emails clearly shows the DEQ was planning to release the raw data package and the draft report to us when we filed our original Freedom of Information request.

As a courtesy, the DEQ was also planning to release the data and the report to the tribes and other stakeholders at the same time.

They released it to us on February 14th, 2025.

Abbie Ebert wrote, DEQ received a public information request from Montana PBS for the draft 2023 PFAS, Fish Tissue and Surface Water Report and Associated Data.

We are providing you with the same information that we will be releasing to Montana PBS.

The draft report and data package are attached.

Then less than two hours later, Ebert sent out a follow-up email saying, hold on, sending the emails if you can.

The governor's office may not want us to release the draft report.

Finally, four days later, Ebert wrote, the records request will be completed at the end of the day.

Today the requester will be provided, the data spreadsheet.

Please do not send them the report.

- That is very, very, very, very concerning.

Human health didn't use to be a political issue.

- I don't think they need to intervene with science and stuff like this, especially if it's concerning people's health.

I mean, this information needs to get out to the people for their safety and their families.

You know?

- What would you say to the governor, because clearly there was intervention from the governor's office.

What would you say to the governor about this intervention?

If you could?

- I would ask why.

I would want to know the exact thinking process and where the recommendation came from to not release this information to do the most public good.

I would wanna know why.

- Over a nearly month long time period, Montana PBS sent Governor Gianforte's media team a half-dozen emails and called numerous times to request an interview for this investigation.

We even reached out to his general legal counsel.

All calls and emails were completely ignored.

So we tracked him down at a public round table discussion at Montana Tech in Butte.

Hi, Governor Gianforte, Anna Rau with Montana PBS.

I'm wondering why did your office suppress the PFAS in Fish Tissue report?

- Yeah, I have a bunch of people here that are waiting for - You do, but nobody will call me back, so I can't get anything from your office.

Could you please answer my question?

Governor Gianforte tried to deflect our questions to his staff who were unqualified and unprepared to answer questions about the PFAS report.

So we tried again to allow him to explain his decision.

Governor Gianforte, could you please answer the question, why are you suppressing the release of this report on PFAS and fish tissue?

- Yeah, I'm going to the restroom.

- This is gonna be a big deal.

There are a lot of implications for what was published, what wasn't published.

The decision not to release this information is causing harm to the public because people now do not have the information to know what to avoid or when to stop.

- They recognize how dangerous it is.

Clearly the, because they're saying don't eat the fish from Fort Peck Reservoir, but they've done nothing about it.

- What would I like to say?

Get the information out to the people.

I mean, people are probably gonna be affected for generations because of this.

- State officials did finally release new fish consumption guidelines along with the report.

the new guidelines do put limits on the amount of fish they recommend people eat, but they are nowhere close to the recommendations in the memo we referenced in our investigation.

That's because the state decided not to use the EPAs newest guidance and instead went with the standard that allows people to eat higher concentrations of PFAS in fish.

Gone are all the "avoids" for Fort Peck and instead there are three do not eats only for large sized fish and only for women and children.

That's all the time we have for this episode.

We'll see you on the next impact.

(whoosh) - Major funding for Impact comes from the Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends and values of importance to Montanans funding.

Also comes from viewers like you who are friends of Montana PBS.

Thank you.