Overall the authors have successfully addressed the reviewer’s comments. I note however that :

• Your response to reviewer 1 on “why the location of the transect does not match with (include) the measurements sites” should be somehow reflected in the manuscript (possibly in section 2.6).
• The added discussion on the potential of fine scale representation of snow-energy-water dynamics for larger scale climate model is crucial. It could have even been slightly expended with maybe some thoughts on: i) how current model neglecting sub-grid heterogeneity may be biased with respect to their sensitivity to climate change, ii) is there other SR processes linked to vegetation heterogeneity that may/should be included in current model given these results,…. I let the authors decide whether they can slightly increase this discussion or not without delaying further the publication.

I have also additional suggestion of minor corrections:
• P2 line 50 : reference Strum 2001 is not found (maybe it is Sturm ?)
• Figure 1 : the extent of the simulated domain is not clearly depicted from the figure (i .e. : the wide of the domain (45 m) around the dash line could be indicated)
• Figure 4 caption : precise a, b, c panel in the caption
• Figure 6 caption : precise what is the spatial domain that is averaged (whole domain or ? )
• The sentence in the added paragraph in section 3.5 « Tradeoffs between various approaches to include lateral processes and computational needs to be carefully studied before developing quasi or fully three-dimensional land surface models. » seems not complete ?

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revision and for taking into account all comments.
Best regards,
Philippe