Both reviews of the manuscript were generally positive, with comments from the reviews providing suggestions to strengthen and clarify the results.The reviewers note the importance of this work and the quality of the manuscript presentation. I find that the authors' proposed revisions adequately address the reviewer comments.

At this point, I would instruct the authors to make the proposed changes and submit their revised manuscript. The manuscript will undergo a review by the Editor to ensure the proposed changes are incorporated.

The authors have generally done a good job in incorporating the reviewer comments. I do find two comments by Reviewer #2 that do not appear to be fully addressed and should be included in a revised manuscript:

1. Reviewer #2, Comment starting and ending with: "Also, it would be good to provide more rationale...Readers with a more traditional statistics background..."

While I think the authors' addition of other references that use the NQT methods, a more detailed literature review needs to be provided that includes the purpose and flow statistic that NQT has been used previously. I agree with Reviewer #2 that this method is still not widely used and therefore some additional background and context should be supplied. I fully understand the reviewers not adding details of how the NQT method differs from traditional methods but there should be more background in the text. If the use of NQT for flood frequency is a novel use of NQT (which I believe it is) then perhaps it is worth nothing this with associated literature in the introduction.

2. Reviewer #2, Comment starting and ending with: "It was unclear to me...how temperature relates to the model or goals of the study."

I did not see any mention of the relevance of temperature to these basins in the introduction. This should be introduced here. The authors state that "we provided...a justification for the use of river flow data as a proxy for mean aerial rainfall..." but this says nothing about the use of temperature. The added sentence in the Methodology section (Section 3) is too late in the text to introduce the use of temperature. If temperature is part of the hypotheses underlying the study, then it should be noted in the Introduction.

I also urge the authors to review the HESS author guidelines particularly as they pertain to equations, variables, and figures: http://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html. Figure 5, for example, has an unlabeled y-axis. This needs to be fixed. Carefully ensure this manuscript complies with all HESS submission guidelines.

Once these further changes are made, I look forward to reading the revision. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Kindly,
Stacey

Thank you so much for taking into consideration my comments and revising appropriately. Congratulations on the publication of this paper.

Wishing you all the best,
Stacey