Use of WRF-Hydro over the Northeast of the US to Estimate Water Budget Tendencies in Small Watersheds

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Three are the aims of the paper: (1) model performance evaluation according to traditional standards; (2) hydrology dataset providing; (3) water budget tendencies. They are performed on the northeastern U.S. from available models and datasets. The algorithm of the method appears sufficiently plausible.

As regards the performance of the model, about 17% of the stations resulted "unsatisfactory" according to NSE, RSR and PBias. However, the tendencies of 3-day peak flow, 7-day low flow and 5-day means for the model results and streamflow gauges agree sufficiently.

The text of chapter 4.3. shows some lacks. I suggest a more exhaustive description. Figure 10 is mentioned only with regard to SWE while no references are used for the other six components of the budget.

minor comments:

[105 line]: is the sentence "We evaluate the performance or the model" correct? It does not seem.

[206-207 lines] please cite "Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency" in the text.

[345 line] please cite "Snow Water Equivalent" in the text.

The caption of the Figure 10 should be better organized.

[398 line] ... "We we"... please delete one.

[417 line] delete  "Snow Water Equivalent" in the text (see above).

[441-443 lines] please define "Author Contributions"

[444 line] "Acknowledgments:" is empty

[445-451 lines] template sentences are present.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We appreciate the time you took to review our work and for the comments you made. We have answered all your comments (please see attached document) and changed the document accordingly. 

With all the best,

Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study proposes to evaluate the performance of the Noah-MP model within the WRF-hydro model for the northeast of the US in providing a consistent hydrology dataset and evaluating changes in the water cycle components that are driven by streamflow changes.

I think there are few issues to address. I recommend publication contingent on revisions as described in the following.

 You can find my comments on the pdf file of manuscript in the form of tracks.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, 

We appreciate the time you took to review our work and for the comments you made. We have answered all your comments (please see attached document) and changed the document accordingly. 

With all the best,

Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf