Post-Construction, Hydromorphological Cumulative Impact Assessment: An Approach at the Waterbody Level Integrating Different Spatial Scales
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
My main comment on the content of the manuscript is the lack of information about the limitations and uncertainties of your study. You stated that the main limitation of the study was the lack of initial information about the studied characteristics of the rivers under consideration. At the same time, there is no information about the methodological limitations and uncertainties of the results obtained. Since the findings of your study claim to be somewhat guiding, it will be very important for the reader to receive such information. Be more self-critical about your approaches and results. Give as much detail as possible about it.
In addition:
(1) In Keywords, words and phrases should not repeat those in the title of the manuscript, otherwise they lose their purpose.
(2) Lines 131-132: “… are comprise the first water bodies designated for Arges River respectively Targului River.”. I did not understand the meaning of this part of the sentence.
(3) The maps in Figure 1 require elevation scales.
(4) All symbols in Figure 3 should be explained in the figure caption.
(5) Table 5. What are the units of measurement of "Multiannual average natural flow"?
Some improvement in English is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents an approach for performing impact assessment for a series of hydropower plants on a high elevation river basin in Romania. As most river basins are modified, the study is of high relevance.
The study customises some of the existing formulas that are being used in Romania so a paragraph in the Introduction providing some local context might be useful. I think that the main limitation is that the study does not perform any hydrological and hydraulic modelling. It would be useful to compare the results of the model with the results obtained by using measurements at upstream/downstream locations.
Please also see the attached manuscript for additional comments and suggestions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript attempts to provide an approach for the hydro-morphological cumulative impact assessment after construction at the waterbody level. It maybe interesting for some readers of water resources management and researches. However, the present version is very difficult to understand and must be improvement largely before it can be accepted.
1. The English writing is very difficult to understand. I suggest the authors to improve the writing thoroughly. It would be wise to ask help from some native English speakers.
2. Lines 44-53, please provide more details on "DPSIR"? For instance, its advantages or drawbacks? Also give some references.
3. Table 2 contains numerous instances of repetition; and the classes system with different statistics has classes with similar characteristics, which should be summarized in the text rather than simply listed in the table. Also, too many words in this table.
4. Figures, pls give a color bar for the color of the waterbody 1 and 2; the placenames in the map of figure 2 is very unclear; Figure 3, what do you mean by SHP1,2 3 and S1,2,3, give a legend here; Figure 5 contains too many words, and what would you like to express by RESPO… in the green part.
5. What’s the difference between river section, river sector and river unit. Please give strict and clear definitions.
6. Lines 129-136, since the statistics in Table 2 require the use of river discharge, it is necessary to include information about the climate of the study area, as well as the flooding return period.
7. Lines 352, and 380-388. I can’t find a statistic reflecting “fish aid”. If the conclusions regarding fish aid are based on other references, please indicate. If not, please provide a clear statement, as fish aid is a vital component of the research and the recommendations.
8. The Section 4 lacks a discussion around the results section, making the discussion section appear independent of the rest of the article. No tables or figures are cited in the discussion section.
9. Discussions does not compare the findings of this study to those of other papers. Please include a few comparisons. A good point is to compare the methods and results of the cumulative impact in estuaries. For example, Xie et al. (2017, 2021) analyzed the cumulative impacts of the large-scale embankment in the Qiantang Estuary and Hangzhou Bay, China by means of a long-term morphodynamic model as well as field data. As a result of the large-scale embankment, significant morphological responses have occurred in the estuary, for example, the large bar in the inner estuary have moved seaward by about 16 km (Xie et al., 2021); the accumulation rate in the Hangzhou Bay have been increased from several cm/a to more than 10 cm/a (Xie et al., 2017). Significantly, the cumulative impact on the hydro-morphological development induced by human activities in the river section is different from that in the estuary part. This may be related to the hydrodynamics (river vs. river + tides) and sediment properties (fine silt or clay vs. gravels).
10. The headings 4.1 and 4.2 are too general and should include a topic sentence for the scientific question. Rather than listing them in random order, a number of arguments should be summarized and highlighted (even a few paragraphs have only one sentence).
11. Line 518-519, please offer additional suggestions to management by providing additional information, references, etc.
References:
Xie D., Wang Z. B., Van der Wegen M., Huang J., 2021. Morphodynamic modeling the impact of large-scale embankment on the large bar in a convergent estuary. Marine Geology, 442(2), 106638
Xie D., Pan C., Wu X., Gao S., Wang Z. B., 2017. Local human activities overwhelm decreased sediment supply from the Changjiang River: Continued rapid accumulation in the Hangzhou Bay-Qiantang Estuary system. Marine Geology, 392, 66-77
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is much improved, especially the discussion section and figures. However, I still think that even if hydrological and hydraulic modelling is outside of the scope of this paper, this needs to be added as a future recommendation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised the ms according to my comments. I have no further suggestions or comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
