Dear authors,
Thank you for your submission to HESS. We have received two sets of referee’s comments. Reviewer #2 is more critical. He is particularly concerned about the lack of clarity in the methodological approach, and mentions that this lack of clarity makes the discussion and interpretation of result difficult and therefore affects the value of the contribution. Reviewer #1 is more positive but has also listed some major concerns.

I agree with the reviewers that there are some key aspects of the methodology that are not clear in the paper. The authors mention, in the responses to the reviewers, that they will incorporate more details in the revised paper, which might hopefully address the reviewer’s concerns.

The authors mention a paper under review, in response to the comments to reviewer #1. Please note that the paper methods and discussion cannot be based on unpublished methods/results. This paper needs to include all relevant information for the revision process, and it cannot be accepted if a relevant portion of the methodology depends or has been tested in a paper that is not available. The authors need to incorporate the information either in the main text or as supplementary material. It is also very important to notice that the results of the work presented in this manuscript should be relevant even if the other paper (now under review in journal of hydrology-JoH) is published.

After the new manuscript is submitted addressing all the referees' concerns, it will be send back to the reviewers for further assessment of the revised manuscript.

We have now received two referee reports. After my own assessment of the manuscript, I agree with the reviewers that the authors have addressed and/or satisfactorily responded to the previous reviewers questions and comments.

Patricia Saco