## 3 Results and Discussion
### Optimization of the W2 WQMP - Results and Discussion
Other stations proposed for removal, such as M03 and 10, should be maintained as they are integrative stations. Station 04010258 should also be maintained as it is an important river section according to the justification provided (water quality downstream from the City of Lachute). Stations suggested by [PERSON]'s analysis, 04010308 and 04010003 require further validation prior to removal. Stations such as 21 and 23 should be kept, as they are integrative stations. Stations 04010203 and 04010306 can effectively be removed as no justification is available. As for the stations to be suggested for conservation by both analysis types, some should indeed be kept, but some more actionable tasks for a final decision are necessary (Table 2). A total of five stations were suggested for a definitive removal. However, at least four stations (71, 72, 73 and 74) should be added. Their location can be consulted in Figure 10B. Station?1 should be located on a tributary that drains an area where a ski resort and a golf course are located. Given the fact that sampling site 9 serves to verify these impacts, the outflow of this tributary should be known. Station?2 should be added to determine water quality from Riviere du Nord upstream from this tributary. Station?3 would be a station to be added to obtain information on the influence of Riviere Saint-Antoine. Ideally, there should be a station downstream of the Riviere Saint-Antoine inflow (upstream from the wastewater treatment plant of the city of Saint-Jerome) and downstream of the wastewater treatment plant (station?4). A final station (?5) could be added, but accessibility and mixing are an issue. This station would be downstream of the Ruisseau St-Andre inflow, in order to obtain an integrative station for the Riviere du Nord river (station?5). Table 1 provides a summary of the actionable tasks still necessary for final decision making regarding the W2 WQMP. For instance, the verification of whether sufficient data is available during rain events (already considered an optimization objective). This also applies to the actionable task: Verify whether the sampling frequency was sufficient and whether a different type of sampling frequency should be adopted. Several other tasks are proposed, such as verifying whether the stations are representative of the goals pursued and whether mixing is assured. Some of the tasks must be applied to all stations, others are specific to n stations. Table 2 is a summary of a detailed dashboard table of actionable tasks to be provided by the IDSS. Figure 10: (**A**): illustrates the W2 sampling site network, the sampling site network, and the sampling stations suggested for retention or removal following the Kriging and Moran analysis. Stations without any specifications are considered as neutral, as neither their retention nor their removal will have an effect on the model. (**B**): Suggested sampling site network after the first series of validations (Section 2.5). The IDSS will provide further decision support for the actionable tasks. In the case of the two actionable tasks already identified as optimization objectives, the IDSS proposes analysis methods provided in the literature. In order to answer the question as to whether sufficient data was available during rain events, it was necessary to verify under which rain event modality a difference in concentrations of the retained water quality parameters FC, PT and TSS could be detected. The results presented in Table 2 show that there is no difference between the concentrations of FC, PT, and TSS between the rain modalities 1- rainfall the same day and 2- rainfall 0-24 h prior to sampling. It may be assumed that the peak