Predicting Snowmelt Runoff at the Source of the Mountainous Euphrates River Basin in Turkey for Water Supply and Flood Control Issues Using HEC-HMS Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes the application of HEC-HMS model to a catchment with a significant snowmelt contribution. A function based on the ATIMR was used to determine the snowmelt. The results of the model calibration and validation are presented and the discrepancy with the observed flow are explained by the presence of karstic formations. This paper can be very useful to the readers because it presents a practical application of the ATIMR model. However, the paper can benefit from comparing different formulas for melt rate and discussion of this. Please also refer to the attached annotated manuscript for specific comments and suggestions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The overall structure of this paper, grammatical syntax, figures, and presentation style rank quite well compared to other open-access papers I have reviewed previously. The results are also quite impressive for the compartmental-type of modelling being employed here.

While I enjoyed reading this paper, I think there are some discussion points that an be improved upon and some literature review/citations that could be cleaned up before accepting this manuscript for publication.

For one, a key missing ingredient results due to a failure to acknowledge or discuss other snow melt & accumulation models before settling upon HEC-HMS as the 'right tool for the job.' The authors simply state that it "has a very sophisticated graphical user interface" and was called "the best snow model" by a review from several years ago (2003). Certainly, scientific merit, model robustness/capabilities, and applicability to the particular region under study are among some of the factors that one should consider when selecting a new model of a physical process, and more recent published works can be included in the choice rationale as well.

In light of this, I think the reviewers should research other publicly-available snow modelling hydrology software (e.g., winSRM, CRHM, FSM2), that are only a google search away, to provide a more balanced discussion.

My other notes are below on a point-by-point basis:

Lines 49-50: "There are already a wide variety of hydrological models currently used by researchers, ..."

Statements like this can be seen as nebulous or vague by your reader. Be specific about what flavours of models (spatially lumped / conceptual models, physically space-dependent models, statistical/empirical, etc.) are available and provide references to relevant sources.

Line 52: "Many hydrological models are used for research purposes..." 

Again, saying "Many ..." without providing references and examples represents using 'weasel words', and are seen as unkind to the inexperienced reader.

Lines 60-63: See paragraphs above about justifying your model choice. There are better reasons to choose a model than having an extensive GUI or a high-praising reference in a single review from two decades ago.

Lines 80-81: Citation missing when introducing Soil Moisture Account algorithm.

Lines 328-329: "Some temperature index models..."

Again, provide examples with citations.

Line 336: "Past modeling studies..." 

Such as?..

Line 376: "that that only one meterological model..."

Remove duplicated 'that'.

Line 420: "... had completely melted disappeared."

Suggest removing 'disappeared.'

Section 2.7: Indicate why manual calibration was preferred here. Presumably, one's physical intuition can help guide the choice of parameters used in the 'next iteration', but there are automation tools (such as PEST) for finding near-optimal fits (in the 'best fit' sense).

Line 544: "help authorities [to] use water resources well, ..."

'to' seems to be in the wrong place.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The new version of the manuscript is much improved. The aim of the study is now clearer and  I also like the additional discussion about calibrating the HEC-HMS model. The authors replies to my comments were very thorough and helpful. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I approve this new iteration of the manuscript. I see that most, if not all, of my suggestions have been taken into account in the revision, and I have no further suggestions or questions for the authors.