Dear Florian and colleagues,

Thank you very much for the detailed response to the comments of the reviewers and the suggestion how you want to address these issues in the revision of the manuscript. Summarizing the comments of the reviewer the main revision will include:
• Better explanation and proofing of your choice for certain empirical parameters,
• Improve explanation of modelling results, indicating possible limitations of the model
• Discussing the transferability of your parameter choice to other catchments.
Both reviewers indicate parts of the manuscript where further explanations or clarifications of terms are needed. Thus, I ask and encourage you to include all comments in the revision of your manuscript as you already indicated in the interactive response.

I have following suggestion to some of your response how you want to deal with the comments:
• Reviewer 1, general comment: additionally, provide also a short review on theoretical concepts explaining this behavior and how it is related to your model
• Reviewer 1: Page 6, 195-196.: I think just deleting the sentence is not a good solution. You have to explain your choice for the parameter of internal friction, It seems that you did not used the typical criteria for Voellmy friction
• Reviewer 1: Page 7, 221-222.: please add the suggested figure
• Reviewer 2: Page 1, lines 23-24.: provide a better reasoning for your calibration procedure and highlighting also the pro and cons of the chosen procedure

Furthermore, the next steps are to prepare one response file (as .pdf) including (1) comments from referees/public, (2) author's response, and (3) author's changes in manuscript. Regarding author's changes, a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf including the author's response must be submitted. Additionally, you have to upload the new version of the manuscript (see also Please consider therefore the guidelines of the NHESS procedure again (http://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html#interactivepublicdiscussion).
The revised version will be reviewed by one reviewer and the editor. If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]