Dear Aurélien,

Thank you for your detailed response to the reviewers comments and revised manuscript. The manuscript has received favourable reviews and I'm satisfied that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers.

Clearly there is ongoing development of the model and further sensitivity analysis of model behaviour will be needed in the future, however as a model description and original contribution to the literature I recommend that this article be published.

During my read through of the manuscript a spotted a few very minor issues that you will want to address. These are outlined below but do not in my opinion require further review.

Best wishes,
Jeff

Specific points:

P3 L15: The addition of Isaak 2016 has enhanced the review, however you don't explain why they conclude that mountain streams are more resilient than previously thought. This addition you have made would therefore seem out of step with the generally detailed review that has preceded this. If you agree please add a sentence here

p4 L15 "stops to model it" should be "stops modelling it"... the former implies alpine 3D actually starts modelling where it stops.

p6 l3 why subsurface flux discharge here rather than subsurface water flux or subsurface flux as defined above

P17 L 30 "at a rate of one per hour" -> hourly

P20 L30: Rather than speculating that this might be done in the future, could you comment on how the modularisation of the code makes this feasible or not in the future? Thus avoiding the need to merely speculate.