dear authors,

as you know, during the last 2 months, we have carefully reviewed your manuscript and found it of potential interest to the journal readers.
However, both referees believed that substantial modifications and amendments to the paper were necessary, at the first-submission stage, to make it suitable for publication in NHESS.
The corrections that you have already made to the original paper are addressing the highlighted points in the right way. Before going to the next phase, however, I have asked a single-referee review to check how they feel about the modifications. We are now waiting for their reply that should come soon.
I hope that this will take no longer than a couple of weeks,
thanks again for your contribution,
to soon,
FC

dear authors

I am pleased to communicate that, after the last revisions and modifications that you applied to the manuscript, your paper is now acceptable for publication.
Your replies and amendments cover most of the referee's observations and are thus satisfactory.
I have only two minor requests (that I have filed as technical corrections in the publication procedure):
1. please have a careful revision of spelling (I have seen several small grammatical errors scattered that are easily removed with a spell check round)
2. please add some more explanations on why you did use the data of Liao and Zhou (2015) for modelling rheology params. What is the type of tailing material in the three cases averaged by the authors? In which way it is comparable to the material in the cases treated in the paper?
Just a short explanation to avoid that the reader is forced to refer to the other paper to understand your work.

After that, I am satisfied with the work and the process will go directly to proof-editing.

My best regards,
thank you again for publishing with NHESS,
Filippo Catani