Dear Authors,

sincere thank you for your efforts to improve the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. All the changes made are clearly visible and have improved the manuscript, especially with regard to the raised questions on the limitations when using the existing (non-dynamic) SPARROW model, the question of its validation when all available data were used to develop a model, and the application to rainfall and/or snowmelt season only.

There are some technical corrections needed to be done (list of references) - please, read the instructions for preparation of manuscripts carefully:

http://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/submission/manuscript_preparation.html

For example, you should write out all the authors in the list of references without using the abbreviations et al. (as it is allows in the text of the manuscript), the year when the reference was published, comes at the end of a reference, and check the abbreviations of the journals, using dots after the abbreviated names. You may also add doi numbers to some of the references for their easier search. There mis a reference or two not mentioned in the text or given in the list of references, respectively.

Please, see some of the published HESS papers for the proper form. I have colored these issues in yellow in the attached file with the Editors comments.

Furthermore, Fig. 6 might be prepared in a quadratic form rather than in a rectangular one to see the distance to the slope 1:1 as it should be (equidistance).

Another issue is presenting numbers (results) with too many digits (the precision is simply to high according to the input data). Using DEM 50 x 50 m, I don't think you can compute runoff to xx.yy % precise. I suggest that you should do some rounding of such results to only significant digits (in the abstract and in the main text).

Thank you for selecting HESS as the output journal for your research results.

Sincerely Yours,

Matjaž Mikoš