1

Session 8

Effective Reporting –

Conclusions & Recommendations;

Revising for Readability

Learning Objectives

• Conclusions and Recommendations sections

• What to include (and exclude)

• Making the important information stand out

• Readability

• Make your reports easier to read and understand

• Revise effectively

2

Conclusions

3

2

• Conclusions should

• Follow logically from the Discussion

• Connect to the original objectives of the work

What Conclusions Should Do

Conclusions

Original

objectives

of the work

Discussion

…Answer the big “so what?” i.e., “what does this all add up to?”

What Should Conclusions Do?

Hardworking

professionals

Overwhelmed

client!

The

vertical

extent of

affected

soils

extends

So

what?

Activity - Critique Sample Conclusions

• Questions About Sample Conclusions

• Is it easy to find the main conclusion(s)? Why or why not?

• What is the main finding (conclusion) of this report? Is it stated plainly,

or did you have to hunt for it?

• Do the conclusions follow logically from the discussion?

• What strikes you as good about the conclusions? What do you think

would make the conclusions better (stronger, easier to understand)?

• Does the author link the conclusion back to the original purpose

of the work?

6

Small groups

3

4.0 DISCUSSION

The purpose of the Phase II ESA was to investigate the presence or absence of subsurface soil

and groundwater impacts related to operations at the Site.

Based on the investigations conducted, soil and groundwater impacts were not detected above

applicable SE RBCA criteria near the Mill Building, the Planar building, the existing ASTs, or the

former AST locations west of the sawmill, southwest of the Kiln, and southwest of the chips load-

out. It should be noted that no investigation was conducted below the building footprints at the

Site; investigation below the buildings will be undertaken as part of the Stage 2 investigation.

Analytical results indicated that concentrations of BTEX and PHC fractions were below

applicable SE RBCA criteria in all samples except one soil sample and one groundwater

sample. The soil sample collected from 1.5 m to 2.1 m deep in borehole GA08-23 contained PHC

fraction F3 in excess of the applicable SE RBCA criteria. The groundwater sample collected from

monitoring well GA08-24 contained PHC fraction F2 in excess of the applicable SE RBCA criteria.

Based on the results of this Phase II ESA, it appears that impacts do not extend outside the limits

of the building, except for in the Mobile Shop area, where impacts were identified outside the

building limits. Given the location of the boreholes with impacts relative to the building, it is

likely that impacts extend beneath the footprint of the building in this area. They cannot be

adequately quantified at this time.

Additional assessment of impacts below buildings should be undertaken following demolition of

the buildings.

4.0 DISCUSSION

The purpose of the Phase II ESA was to investigate the presence or absence of subsurface soil

and groundwater impacts related to operations at the Site.

Based on the investigations conducted, soil and groundwater impacts were not detected above

applicable SE RBCA criteria near the Mill Building, the Planar building, the existing ASTs, or the

former AST locations west of the sawmill, southwest of the Kiln, and southwest of the chips load-

out. It should be noted that no investigation was conducted below the building footprints at the

Site; investigation below the buildings will be undertaken as part of the Stage 2 investigation.

Analytical results indicated that concentrations of BTEX and PHC fractions were below applicable

SE RBCA criteria in all samples except one soil sample and one groundwater sample. The soil

sample collected from 1.5 m to 2.1 m deep in borehole GA08-23 contained PHC fraction F3 in

excess of the applicable SE RBCA criteria. The groundwater sample collected from monitoring

well GA08-24 contained PHC fraction F2 in excess of the applicable SE RBCA criteria.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this Phase II ESA, it appears that impacts do not extend outside the limits

of the building, except for in the Mobile Shop area, where impacts were identified outside the

building limits. Given the location of the boreholes with impacts relative to the building, it is likely

that impacts extend beneath the footprint of the building in this area. They cannot be adequately

quantified at this time.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Additional assessment of impacts below buildings should be undertaken following demolition of

the buildings.

A Closer Look at These Conclusions

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this Phase II ESA, it appears that

impacts do not extend outside the limits of the buildings,

except for in the Mobile Shop area, where impacts were

identified outside the building limits. Given the location of

the boreholes with impacts relative to the building, it is

likely that impacts extend beneath the footprint of the

building in this area. They cannot be adequately quantified

at this time.

9

-Do the conclusions state what

they are based on?

-Follow logically from the

discussion?

-Address the purpose of the

investigation?

4

• Can you draw conclusions about the

nature of the site?

• Do you need to collect more data before

drawing conclusions about the site?

• For some issues?

• For all issues?

Thinking About Conclusions

In general (not just Strawberry Hill),

• How strong is the conclusion?

• Is it based on reliable data?

• Is it based on enough data?

• What assumptions have I made?

• How sound are my assumptions?

Qualify Your Conclusions!

• Ask

• Are there holes in the data?

• Should we have done something differently?

Revisit the Conceptual Site Model

5

Site Plan with Groundwater Data (coloured dots)

Do you need

more data?

• Scenario: New owner wants to redevelop

site to build condos• They need a Certificate of Compliance – need to

delineate all contaminants

• Also need a soil vapour investigation to obtain the CoC

• Use your knowledge of Strawberry Hill

• What conclusions can you draw based on

your discussion?

• Identify one overall, main conclusion: the big

“so what?” / “what does this all add up

to?”

Draw Conclusions for Strawberry Hill

Small groups

• Share conclusions

• Common conclusions?

• Differences?

• Any important conclusions that

could get overlooked or did get

overlooked?

Debrief Strawberry Hill Conclusions

Debrief small

groups

6

Recommendations

16

• Recommendations must follow logically from

the discussion and conclusions

• Best to present each section separately!

Logical Flow of Report

Discussion Conclusions

Appropriate Action

(may include more investigation)

Recommendations

• Recall the main conclusion you arrived at

earlier about the Strawberry Hill site: the big

“so what?”

• What are some reasonable

recommendations that follow from your

conclusion?

Strawberry Hill: Make Recommendations

Small group exercise

7

• What did you come up with?

• Similarities? Differences?

• Check: • Do they address the project objectives?

• Do they follow logically from the conclusions?

Debrief Strawberry Hill

Recommendations

Debrief small group exercise to large group

• Conclusions and recommendations each

have their own purpose and content

• You may need more data before drawing

conclusions

• Conclusions and recommendations must

follow logically from the CSM

• Must address the project objectives

Review

Revising for Readability

• Some simple and quick techniques

• Headings and subheadings

• Check paragraphs

• Use bullet lists and numbered lists

• Shorten sentences (and simplify if possible)

21

8

A Plea for Subheadings

1.1 Federal Guidelines

Federal lands fall under the jurisdiction of Environment Canada (EC) and

waters with migratory fish fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (F&OC). Guidelines for the protection of

environmental quality have been derived by the Canadian Council of

Ministers of the Environment (CCME).

1.1.1 Soil

The CCME soil quality guidelines (CCME, 1999) are divided into categories

based on land use, including: agricultural (AL); residential (RL)/parkland (PL);

commercial (CL); and industrial (IL). At present, the Site is developed with a

generating station within the community of Tsay Keh Dene. Due to the

proximity of the Site to residential homes and to provide the Band with

information related to future use of the land for residential purposes, RL

guidelines were used to evaluate Site data.

CCME has also issued a document titled, “Canada-Wide Standards for

Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil” (CWS PHC, CCME 2008a). The CWS PHC

provided assessment and remedial standards for hydrocarbon-contaminated

soil, with standards for the four land use categories described above, and

subdivided based on coarse- and fine-grained soil types and surficial and

subsurface soil. The generic CWS PHC standards divide hydrocarbons into

four “fractions”. Fraction 1 (F1) represents the light hydrocarbons (i.e., with

hydrocarbon chain lengths in the range of C6 to C10), that are typically

associated with products like gasoline. Fractions 2 and 3 (F2 and F3)

represent hydrocarbons from C11 to C16 and C17 to C34, the range typically

associated with diesel fuels to oils. Fraction 4 (F4, C35+) represents

products like heavy oils and waxes.

In 2010, CCME updated the soil quality guidelines for commonly occurring

unsubstituted high molecular weight PAHs for the protection of environmental

and human health (CCME, 2010). The CCME 2008a guidelines for the

protection of human health are based on the benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency

Equivalence (B[a]P TPE) which is the sum of the estimated cancer potency

relative to B[a]P for potentially carcinogenic unsubstituted PAHs. The B[a]P

TPE is calculated by multiplying the concentration of each PAH in a sample

by the Potency Equivalence Factor (PEF) and summing these values. To

assess potential risk to human health through ingestion of potable water, the

CCME have implemented an Index of Additive Cancer Risk (IACR; CCME

2010). The IACR is calculated by dividing the soil concentration of

carcinogenic PAHs by their soil quality guideline for the protection of potable

water (i.e., determining their hazard index), and summing the hazard indices

for the entire PAH mixture.

1.1 Federal Guidelines

Federal lands fall under the jurisdiction of Environment Canada (EC) and

waters with migratory fish fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (F&OC). Guidelines for the protection of

environmental quality have been derived by the Canadian Council of

Ministers of the Environment (CCME).

1.1.1 Soil

1.1.1.1 Residential Land Use

The CCME soil quality guidelines (CCME, 1999) are divided into categories

based on land use, including: agricultural (AL); residential (RL)/parkland (PL);

commercial (CL); and industrial (IL). At present, the Site is developed with a

generating station within the community of Tsay Keh Dene. Due to the

proximity of the Site to residential homes and to provide the Band with

information related to future use of the land for residential purposes, RL

guidelines were used to evaluate Site data.

1.1.1.2 Four “Fractions” of Hydrocarbons

CCME has also issued a document titled, “Canada-Wide Standards for

Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil” (CWS PHC, CCME 2008a). The CWS PHC

provided assessment and remedial standards for hydrocarbon-contaminated

soil, with standards for the four land use categories described above, and

subdivided based on coarse- and fine-grained soil types and surficial and

subsurface soil. The generic CWS PHC standards divide hydrocarbons into

four “fractions”. Fraction 1 (F1) represents the light hydrocarbons (i.e., with

hydrocarbon chain lengths in the range of C6 to C10), that are typically

associated with products like gasoline. Fractions 2 and 3 (F2 and F3)

represent hydrocarbons from C11 to C16 and C17 to C34, the range typically

associated with diesel fuels to oils. Fraction 4 (F4, C35+) represents

products like heavy oils and waxes.

1.1.1.3 Index of Additive Cancer Risk

In 2010, CCME updated the soil quality guidelines for commonly occurring

unsubstituted high molecular weight PAHs for the protection of environmental

and human health (CCME, 2010). The CCME 2008a guidelines for the

protection of human health are based on the benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency

Equivalence (B[a]P TPE) which is the sum of the estimated cancer potency

relative to B[a]P for potentially carcinogenic unsubstituted PAHs. The B[a]P

TPE is calculated by multiplying the concentration of each PAH in a sample

by the Potency Equivalence Factor (PEF) and summing these values. To

assess potential risk to human health through ingestion of potable water, the

CCME have implemented an Index of Additive Cancer Risk (IACR; CCME

2010). The IACR is calculated by dividing the soil concentration of

carcinogenic PAHs by their soil quality guideline for the protection of potable

water (i.e., determining their hazard index), and summing the hazard indices

for the entire PAH mixture.

Add

signposts

(headings)!

Craft Helpful Headings

3.1. CCME Soil Quality Guidelines

3.1. Applicable Soil Quality Guidelines

The CCME soil quality guidelines (CCME, 1999) are divided into categories based on land use:

• agricultural (AL)

• residential (RL)/parkland (PL)

• commercial (CL)

• industrial (IL)

Due to the proximity of the Site to residential homes, RL guidelines were used to evaluate Site data.

24

9

Good use of white

space

Nice digestible

sections and

paragraphs

Groundwater flow to Howe Sound has been estimated to range

between 400 m3/day and 5,800 m3/day. These estimates were

calculated using an average hydraulic gradient and the hydraulic

conductivity measured in the foreshore monitoring well, MW01-02

and the up-gradient well, MW01-03. The monitoring well locations

are shown on Figure 1 and Figure 4.

The large range of the estimated flow rate is due to different

stratigraphy and corresponding hydraulic conductivity between

these two well locations. It is not possible, with existing

information, to determine the boundaries between these two fill

types, and therefore not possible to know which set of physical

properties that control the groundwater flow rate predominates.

Site history indicates the possibility that several fill types

(concentrates and various grades of tailings) may have been

deposited in the foreshore area, and extending from the foreshore to

the abandoned mill building.

TIPS:

- short

- one idea

- important info first

- topic sentence

- format, bullets

Check Paragraphs

Simplify and

shorten

26

Clear Recommendations – List, Boldface

We recommend the following actions regarding contamination identified at the site:

1. Complete a Detailed Site Investigation of the site to delineate contaminant sources and to fully characterize the groundwater flow regime.

2. Complete a comprehensive risk assessment of the site, with a primary focus on aquatic life effects in the immediate off-shore area, and particularly in the northern off-shore area. Risk assessment, combined with developing a risk management strategy for uplands contaminated soil exposed at surface is also required.

3. Develop a remediation strategy to mitigate contaminated groundwater discharge from the southern mill area to Howe Sound.

4. Evaluate remedial options for remediating the northern area of the site, which could include mitigating contaminated groundwater discharge from the northern area to Howe Sound.

27

10

Shorten Sentences

Try It - Separate into Two Sentences

The fact that the water table elevations closely mirror the

reservoir levels indicates that the silt layer is not

significantly confining the groundwater flow, and therefore

that dissolved contamination is expected to migrate both

horizontally (towards the reservoir) and vertically

(to the lower sand and gravel unit) depending on the

respective horizontal and vertical hydraulic gradients.

56 words

28

Two Sentences

The fact that the water table elevations closely mirror the

reservoir levels indicates that the silt layer is not

significantly confining the groundwater flow. Therefore,

dissolved contamination is expected to migrate both

horizontally (towards the reservoir) and vertically

(to the lower sand and gravel unit) depending on the

respective horizontal and vertical hydraulic gradients.

29

Simplify Sentences

Try It: How Can We Simplify Further?

Therefore, dissolved contamination is expected to migrate

both horizontally (towards the reservoir) and vertically

(to the lower sand and gravel unit) [where is this sentence

going, again?] depending on the respective horizontal and

vertical hydraulic gradients.

Technique: Consider moving parenthetical information into

its own sentence – see next slide.

30

11

Shorter and Simpler

Therefore, dissolved contamination is expected to migrate

both horizontally and vertically, depending on the

respective horizontal and vertical hydraulic gradients.

Horizontal flow will be toward the reservoir, and vertical

flow will be toward the lower sand and gravel unit.

31

Complex Topic – Harder to Understand

The fact that the water table elevations closely mirror

the reservoir levels [hold that thought!] indicates that the

silt layer is not significantly confining the groundwater flow

[sorry, what indicates that, again?].

32

Simpler Topic = Simpler Sentence

Easier – Stepping logically from one idea to the next

As described previously, water table elevations closely

mirror the reservoir levels [okay, got that!]. This mirroring

indicates that the silt layer is not significantly confining the

groundwater flow [okay, that makes sense!].

33

12

Put subjects (the “doer”) close to verbs (what they’re “doing”)

Another Way to Simplify:

Put Subjects Close to Verbs

34

My friend Jennifer, because it’s a

beautiful day on Bowron Lake, is

smiling.

35

My friend Jennifer is smiling

because it’s a beautiful day on

Bowron Lake.

36

13

Subject Close to Verb

Harder To Follow

• Groundwater levels, as a direct result of

significant fluctuations in tidal levels, vary hourly

in the nearshore wells.

Easier

• Groundwater levels vary hourly in the

nearshore wells as a direct result of significant

fluctuations in tidal levels.

37

Step 8 – Continually Improve

Step Task

1 Identify the reader, report purpose and format

2 Identify the report-writing team

3

Understand your site before writing: Create

tables/figures and develop a Conceptual Site

Model (CSM)

4Create a mindmap or outline, and annotate report

sections

5Make your story come alive with clear and

concise writing

6 Prepare the “crappy first draft”

7 Revise the draft

8 Continually improve your report-writing skills

38

Next

session!

At Your Workplace

• Mentors

• Senior reviewers

• Editors

• Peers

• Seek advice and feedback

39

14

From Site to Story:

8 Steps to Better

Environmental Report

Writing

40

Attend our in-person workshop

or webinar series, offered once

or twice per year. Check

• http://geoenviropro.com/ or

• BC Environment CS-eLink

Three Tip Sheets –

Laminate, or Tape to Your Wall! 8 Steps to Better Environmental Report Writing

41

8 Steps to Better Environmental Report Writing

Step Task Collaborate and

Improve

1 Identify the reader, report purpose, and report type

Discuss with project manager and team

2 Identify the report-writing team

Discuss with project manager and team

3

Understand your site before writing: create tables/figures and develop a Conceptual Site Model (CSM)

Brainstorm with the whole team to develop the CSM

4 Create an outline and annotate report sections

Review outline with team and senior reviewer

5 Know some techniques for clear and concise writing*

Write for your readers

6 Prepare the “crappy first draft” Draft as quickly as you can – for your eyes only!

7 Revise the draft** Revise one step at a

time

8 Continually improve your report-writing skills Use peer review, references and coaching. Practise!

Tip Sheet –8 Techniques for Clear, Concise Writing

42

8 Techniques for Clear, Concise Writing

#1 – Shorten sentences

#2 – Put actions in verbs

#3 – Put the main topic in the subject

#4 – Keep subjects near verbs

#5 – Keep subjects simple

#6 – Use passive and active voice judiciously

#7 – Prefer simple and fewer words

#8 – Use consistent terms and style

Adapted from: Duke University Graduate School Scientific Writing Course

https://cgi.duke.edu/web/sciwriting/index.php?action=lesson1#examples

15

Tip Sheet –7 Steps for Revising a Technical Report

43

7 Steps for Revising a Technical Report

Step Task Questions

1

Check completeness and flow/logic

Is it complete? (text, figures, tables, appendices, references)

Does it flow in the right sequence?

Does it tell the “story”?

2 Check against project objectives

Do methods, conclusions, and recommendations sections support project objectives?

3 Check headings and subheadings

Is the text in manageable chunks?

Are headings/subheadings precise?

4 Check conclusions and recommendations

Are key ideas prominent and clear?

Are conclusions consistent with discussion?

Are recommendations consistent with conclusions?

5 Check executive summary

Is it present, complete, and brief?

Is it consistent with the main report?

6

Check paragraphs Should you shorten?

One main idea per paragraph?

Most-important information first?

Does it have a topic sentence?

Would bullets or numbers help?

7 Check sentences and words

Are acronyms defined?

Can you shorten sentences or words?

Can you simplify and clarify?

See the 8 Techniques for Clear, Concise Writing

3 Recommended Resources

Website

• Duke University Graduate School

– Scientific Writing Resource:

• https://cgi.duke.edu/web/sciwriting/

index.php?action=lesson3#principl

es

• (or just google it)

Blog• Daphne Gray-Grant

Booklet

44

Purdue University – Online Writing Lab

(OWL)

45

16

University of Guelph46

Books on Science Writing

47

Books on Clear Writing

48

17

Coaching

• Remotely or in person

• Individuals or groups

• Margaret Shaw

• margaret_shaw@shaw.ca

• 604-939-1914

• Reidar Zapf-Gilje

• reidar.geoenvirologic@gmail.com

• 604-617-6623

49

Summary

• Conclusions and recommendations must flow logically

from your discussion and address project objectives

• Revise for readability:

• Write with your reader and purpose in mind

• Check and revise headings

• Check paragraph length; important information first

• Shorten and simplify sentences

• Look for opportunities to continually improve

• Consult with colleagues

• Take courses or hire a coach

• Read about writing

• Practise!

50

• Your major insights from the

course?

• Did the course meet your

expectations?

• What will you put into practice?

• How will you share what you have

learned with others?

• Course evaluations

Course Wrap-up

18

End of Session 8

Effective Reporting –

Conclusions & Recommendations;

Revising for Readability

End of Course

Beyond Data:

Conceptual Site Models in

Environmental Site Assessments