Integrated Management and Environmental Impact Assessment of Sustainable Groundwater-Dependent Development in Toshka District, Egypt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read with interest the paper. Thank you for share with me. The paper regards the implementation of the flow and transport numerical model to support the aquifer management and to evaluate the environmental impacts. The numerical model seem works well. However, some points are not clear. I suggest major revision.

Major remarcks.

Line 168. How many layers?

Line 178 – 184 Its not clear how do you apply the boundary condition and initial condition.

Line 192. Is a two dimensional model?. Why do you talk about of Kz?

Line 216-226. What is the solute species?

 

Line 316-317. I would like to watch the picture of the hydraulic conductivity distribution. Is it possible?

Figure 7. The calibration of Sy is not consistent the observed and simulated data do not match. Sy should be decreased.

Line 234-235. Kz?

Line 298-308. What pollutant?

Line 413. What pollution do you simulated? What is the value of the absorption coefficient?

Minor remarks

Line 22 check so-lute

Line 25 check dec-ision

Line 60 – 62. The sentences are not valid in general please reformulate.

Figure 1. Please increase the quality of figure.

Figure 2. Please increase the quality of figure. What is Figure 3…?

Figure 3. Please increase the quality of figure.

Figure 4. Please increase the quality of figure 4. In the figure, please eliminate the a) and b) in white color.

Author Response

All authors acknowledge your time and efforts to revise and improve the manuscript. We have done our best to consider your notes and recommendation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript, water-2370996- entitled "Integrated Management and Environmental Impact Assessment of Sustainable Groundwater-dependent Development in Toshka District, Egypt," has potential, but it is not well written and should be more organized. This research simulate the groundwater flow and the lateral migration of non-reactive pollutants leach- from the ground surface through the aquifer’s porous media in the Toshka region and its behavior under stressful pumping conditions. In my opinion, a careful revision of the English language should be carried out as there currently are some unclear sentences. The study seems not to be well designed. The methodology and results are technically sound. I recommend accepting this manuscript after major revision. The main concerns are as follows:

1)     The Abstract section in the present form is weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.

2)     Quantitative results should be provided in the abstract to make it more comprehensive.

3)     Improve the keywords by including only the phrases in the whole body. It is better to avoid using phrases that are repeated in the title.

4)     Some abbreviations in the paper have already not been addressed in the text.

5)     More recent references might support the first and second paragraphs of the introduction. The most references and literature are pretty old. There is little research reference in 2022 and 2023. The authors should read and use the newly published papers in their research.

6)     More literature review about the other methods is needed. The manuscript could be substantially improved by relying and citing more on relevant literature such as the followings.

·       Samani, S. (2021). Assessment of groundwater sustainability and management plan formulations through the integration of hydrogeological, environmental, social, economic and policy indices. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 15, 100681.

·       Samani, S., Ye, M., Zhang, F., Pei, Y. Z., Tang, G. P., Elshall, A., & Moghaddam, A. A. (2018). Impacts of prior parameter distributions on Bayesian evaluation of groundwater model complexity. Water Science and Engineering, 11(2), 89-100.

7)     I recommend providing a table containing the advantages and disadvantages of the applied methodology based on the literature review and comparing the applied methodology and the similar methodologies.

8)     For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight significant difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them more straightforwardly in the abstract and introduction.

9)     Providing a comprehensive flowchart is highly recommended by researchers, so please add a flowchart representing the methodology in the paper.

10)  The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.

11)  Comparison of the current study with previous research could be improved by more literature review.

12)  The limitations of the present study should be added to the paper, specifically for further research.

13)  It seems that conclusions are observations only, and the manuscript needs thorough checking for explanations given for results. The authors should interpret more precisely the results argument.

In my opinion, a careful revision of the English language should be carried out as there currently are some unclear sentences

Author Response

All authors acknowledge your time and efforts to revise and improve the manuscript. We have done our best to consider your notes and recommendation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved manuscript according the reviewer suggestions.

Author Response

The authors really appreciate your efforts to thoroughly review the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

The authors really appreciate your efforts to thoroughly review the manuscript.