All reviewers agree that the paper is of interest to HESS. However, there are several points that need detailed attention before it can be published in HESS. I thin if the authors consider these points and provide a detailed response and description about the changes and addition, that paper could be considered for publication in HESS.

Best regards
Markus Weiler

Dear authors,

thanks a lot for sending in the revised version including the response letter. I think the paper improved considerable. The authors addressed most comments of the reviewers.

I have a couple of minor comments the authors should address before the paper can be published:
1) The "equations" in section 3.2. should either be marked as equations or probably the better solution, the slope, intercept, R2, p-value and n should be listed in a table.
2) provide a legend for Figure 3 - solid and open circles. It is also not completely clear when there are missing data or zero values - maybe a solid line for streamflow with interruptions for period of no data would be more helpful.
3) Figure 4 is quite difficult to see - maybe arranging the plots in a 2x2 set-up would be better…
4) I think it would be helpful to show the streamflow for this event in Figure 6 for the 3 watersheds as well.
5) Explain the grey area around the stream in Figure 8.

Best regards
Markus Weiler