Dear Authors,
Your original manuscript was evaluated by three referees who are experts in the related topic and have provided comments with different nuances, mainly due to their backgrounds. However, they overall rated your paper rather poorly. Two out of the three referees found the scientific quality of your study quite poor and the results also require to be presented better. From your preliminary replies during the discussion phase, I see that there is room for improvement, but the original manuscript requires major revisions. Please note that another round of referee's evaluation should be required, and be advised that there is no guarantee for the final acceptance of the revised version. Please upload your revised version together with a detailed point-by-point reply to the comments received so far (even in a different and better-organized form than your preliminary responses published already in the D-phase).

Dear Authors:
Your revised submission was evaluated by two out of the three previous reviewers. As you can see, while one reviewer gave a positive comment, the other was still quite critical. After an in-depth examination of both the last issues raised by Ref.#2 (of the revised paper), I agree with these additional concerns. Moreover, this part of the manuscript is indeed a bit hard to read and more flowing and especially clear sentences are required. Therefore, I invite you to provide adequate responses to the points raised by this Ref.#2.
As also raised by Ref.# 2 of the initial submission (who was different by the current #2), overall the manuscript still reads with some difficulty and I suggest you should improve the readability of the paper wherever possible.

Dear Authors,
I went through your second revision and found it in a good shape to be published in HESS as it is. Congratulations.
Nunzio Romano