The reviewers are both happy that the paper should be published in HESS with some additional changes and corrections. The Authors have made some good responses and explained what they plan to do to address the reviewers concerns, I am happy with the approaches outlined. However I also want to see some discussion around the length of the model simulations runs and if that is long enough compared to other studies that use such modelling techniques to explore geomorphic changes... I will then review the revised manuscript and the full responses of what the authors have changed and confirm if the paper should move to publication....

Dear Authors, thank you for your revisions and taking into account the minor comments by the reviewers. I agree a full sensitivity test of the model is out of scope here but I would encourage approaches to that for future research and in particular what is core in the inputs and parameters in terms of impacting model outputs (of course limited research has been published in this regard). I request a quick couple of small changes before final publication:
1) In your manuscript alterations you have duplicated the same paragraph, so this is from line 510 onwards (final para before conclusions)
2) I recommend you consider a change of word for the start of this para - first sentence (if you agree). I often find the use of 'realistic' difficult to justify without a clear context that goes with it (in other words justifying it's use). I'm suggesting that 'plausible' might be a better word here....
The rest of the changes, and your clear excellent efforts in ensuring the manuscript has been improved for readability, is great and I am very happy to have this paper published in HESS after this final small corrections