Dear Authors:

I have received two reviews of your manuscript. The first Referee (anonymous) suggested some minor revisions. The 2nd Referee (Dr. Huggel) provided extensive comments and recommended re-considering the manuscript after major revisions. Criticisms of both Referees were addressed in your responses. Now, based on the advice received, I would be willing to consider a revised manuscript that addresses the concerns and suggestions of both Referees. I offer you re-submitting the revised version of the manuscript for additional review

Alexander Gelfan,
HESS Editor

General comment
The authors have taken into account the criticisms and suggestions of both referees that resulted in significant improvement of the manuscript. However in my opinion, it still needs some editing. In order to make the manuscript more concrete and clear to a reader, I propose the following minor structural changes.
In its current version, Introduction contains some excess information that can be removed without any losses to the presentation logic. For instance, there is very informative review in Section 1.2 (“Introduction to glacial lake hazard process chain modeling”), but not all mentioned references are explicitly related to the methodology used in the study. It is not clear which achievements of the previous models and methods are utilized, which drawbacks need to be improved in this study and so on. At the same time, I found that 3rd (Methodology) Section provides this information. For instance, the text fragment (P.9, line 21 – P.10, line 5) presents short concrete review of the lake simulation approaches, the fragment (P.11, line 10 – P.13, line 17) contains concrete review of erosion simulation approaches, the fragment (P.15, line 10 – P.15,line 27) provides review of the inundation simulation methods, etc. These reviews are not necessary in this section where only specific used methods should be described
I suggest moving the corresponding text fragments from Methodology to Introduction.

Technical revision
In Fig. 11, I have not found areas of different colors, which are related to the aerial images. Please clarify.

Conclusion
I suggest the authors revising the manuscript and resubmitting within a reasonable time for final editor’s decision.

Dear Authors

I appreciate and thank you for your clear and concise response to feedback from all reviewers. Your responses were thoughtful and thorough. I find that the revised version of the manuscript satisfactory addresses the reviewer comments and is acceptable for publication in HESS.

Alexander Gelfan
HESS Editor