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
• 604-939-1914
• Reidar Zapf-Gilje
• 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