The manuscript has received three constructive reviews. All reviewers note that the topic of this manuscript is both important and timely and note that the study will be of interest to a broad readership.

Though the reviewers had several recommendations that I believe will be useful to the authors when revising the manuscript, there were two common themes throughout:

The reviewers all had several questions and comments regarding the methods section of this manuscript, and sought additional clarity. I encourage the authors to expand these sections with both text and equations, as they have outlined in their response, including a discussion of the model framework, the selected flow metrics (and why these were selected), and the choice of a metric of model accuracy (why KGE and not an explicitly low flow metric like LRMSE?). The reviewers also had questions regarding some of the decisions made by the authors in the methods section, and encouraged the authors to justify their decisions. In their response, the authors have developed a good plan to address these comments, and I’d encourage them to acknowledge not only their decisions and why they made them, but also to include a discussion of these limitations in the context of how to move the science of predicting intermittent streams forward.

The other common string of comments from the reviewers centered on some of the limitations of the model in the context of the physical hydrology of intermittent streams. For instance, as pointed out by the reviewers, the choice of flow metrics that best describe hydrologic regimes may differ across systems, and from a physical hydrologic perspective, even streams in close proximity can exhibit different behavior. I encourage the authors to acknowledge these limitations, and the implications of these limitations for their work, and for the work of the broader community working to simulate and study intermittent streams. Though the authors responded to these reviewer comments, I request that they revise their manuscript to provide greater discussion of these limitations in their revision.

One reviewer also recommended changes to figures, to make them more interpretable, and I encourage the authors to incorporate these recommendations into their revision.

I request that the authors incorporate their proposed revisions into the discussion paper for re-review.

The article has received two additional reviews, both of which indicate that the manuscript is strong and has improved in the recent round of iteration.

However, both reviewers still had concerns. Reviewer 1 notes that their concerns were not adequately addressed, and encourages some additional text be added to the manuscript. Reviewer 2 would like additional information, particularly with regards to the threshold for intermittence (though other concerns are noted in the review report and should also be addressed) and recommends an additional figure that shows spatial variability in intermittence.

In particular, I agree with Reviewer 2 that additional details on the regression approach (including approach and outcomes) should be added, even though these methods have already been published in another article. All readers need enough information to ensure they fully understand the methods used in this particular study. As this is a key step for determining intermittency, more information is needed.

Both reviewers also note that the implications of this work, and limitations of this approach, should be further discussed.

I encourage the authors to incorporate these recommendations for adding some clarity to the manuscript.

Dear Authors,
Thank you for your thorough response to the reviewer comments and the changes you have made throughout the manuscript. The manuscript is now ready to proceed through the final stages of the publication process.
Regards,
Christa Kelleher