Estimation of Peak Discharge in a Poorly Gauged Catchment Based on a Specified Hyetograph Model and Geomorphological Parameters: Case Study for the 23–24 October 2008 Flood, KALAYA Basin, Tangier, Morocco
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, please find attached my comments on your manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper.
The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful.
I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating the point-by-point comments answers for the two reviewers and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors. The changes are highlighted as requested, and the revised manuscript is attached to this email
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 152: lat. and long. of the rain gage corresponds to a point located very far from Morocco. I suppose that it is a mistake
Line 208: in the equation of Manning lacks the slope
Line 134-135: DEM resolution is low for small watersheds like this
The table 1 ocuppies 3 pages and maybe there isn't space for other tables, maps or graphics related with landuse or lithology methodology to calculate CN.
In torrential flow like this (over 200 mm in a few hours) is interesting to calculate bedload sediment transport. Maybe, the high difference between the observed and simulated values is caused by solid discharge.
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper. The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful. I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating the point-by-point comments answers for the two reviewers and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors. The changes are highlighted as requested, and the revised manuscript is attached to this email
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I'm generally happy with your responses. However, there are still a few aspects which in my opinion were not corrected properly:
Lines 111-112: I don't understand this sentence in reference to Figure 1.
Dates: not all of the dates throughout the next were changed into the format like '23 October 2018' - for example, line 153 or line 158.
Figure 5&6: You did not make your own graphs but just zoomed to the outputs provided by HEC-HMS. The results are that there are unnecessary titles like 'Subbasin "W230"..." in Figure 5 or in legends in both graphs. Please once again export the data and make your own graphs.
Line 314: 'PEP' should be 'PPE'
Line 328: 'Add units' in table description is unnecessary.
Author Response
Dear Prof,
Thank you for your kind communication and for your precious comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with all your comments, and we corrected point by point the manuscript accordingly.
1- Lines 111-112: I don't understand this sentence in reference to Figure 1:
It was a remainder during the first review to refer the rainfall station to Kalaya and the gauging station to Melloussa on the map as requested in the Figure 1. It was left there by mistake and now It has been removed from the manuscrit.
2- Dates: not all of the dates throughout the next were changed into the format like '23 October 2018' - for example, line 153 or line 158:
Yes, we missed the two once you mentioned in line 153 and 158 and also one or two more.
Now they all are chaned to"32 October 2018".
3- Figure 5&6: You did not make your own graphs but just zoomed to the outputs provided by HEC-HMS. The results are that there are unnecessary titles like 'Subbasin "W230"..." in Figure 5 or in legends in both graphs. Please once again export the data and make your own graphs:
We re-export the results from HEC-HMS with removing the "Subbasin W230" and the legends in both graphs as requested in the first and the second review process. Now it is not print screens figures anymore.
4- Line 314: 'PEP' should be 'PPE':
Done.
5- Line 328: 'Add units' in table description is unnecessary:
Done.
Please find the revised manuscript attached to this message.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
