Dear authors,

Your revised manuscript has by now been reviewed by both original reviewers. They both acknowledge that the quality of the manuscript has improved, however, they provided more comments that need to be addressed. Please find attached their reviews below.

Please address these comments point by point in your response letter and submit the responses together with your re-revised manuscript.

Thank you,
Valentina

Review#1

In revised manuscript, it was recognized that most of responses and revisions for each comments were conducted appropriately.
Addition of snow depth in Figure 4 provided clear information that SWE increased despite snow depth decreased. I understand bulk snow density increased considerably at NT. As far as my interpretation of Fig 4, bulk density at NT increased from 200 to 400 kg/m3 or so from first measurement to second one. Now it is understandable that lateral flow in the snowpack seems significant effect.

I felt that additional description is necessary about the estimation of ratio of lateral flow. As a response of quantitative analysis, ratio of lateral flow was estimated using calculated snowmelt amount. I think this method is appropriate. On the other hand, I felt many points are unclear about this estimation. For example, how was the ratio calculated to 4%? How long period was used to estimate the value 4% (for whole winter or specific period)? Was there a difference of ratio of lateral flow between north and south facing slope? Adding these descriptions provide more available information.

Review#2

General comment:
The Introduction and Methods sections were mainly kept unchanged. The Results and Discussion parts were partially modified. The additional data (density profile) presented in the Results part don’t really bring any added value. The discussion is still redundant and several inconsistencies are still present. I would suggest a much more in-depth modification of the paper.

Detailed comments:
P3 L10 Not sure Webb et al. is appropriate at that place.
More generally, this reference hasn’t been changed throughout the text (mix between Webb et al. in review and Webb et al., 2017).

P6 L8-11 Why are you not mentioning 2014 in your analysis?

P6 L11-13 What fraction of precipitation was recorded as snow/rain (based on temperature measurements)? This would be interesting to have an estimate and put it in relation with the SWE increase observed in Fig 4.

P6 L25-33 First, I would suggest a step chart instead of a line for the density graph. This would help the reading of the graph (and maybe highlighting relevant features). This paragraph sounds highly hypothetical (“that display indicators of melt-freeze crusts…”, “likely as the result of melt-freeze cycles”) given that the measured densities (Fig. 3) are not that high. In addition, I don’t really understand the added value of those observations with regard to the main message. The profiles were done near the SNOTEL site, closer to the south aspect slope and should be homogenous (following your argumentation). Could you please clarify this point?

P7 L5-8 As mentioned before, you could compare the change in SWE with the new precipitation and if possible, estimate which part of it due new snow.

P7 L20-21 How can you affirm that ice veins are continuous? Please clarify.

P7 L32 How do you define that the soil is super-saturated?

P8 L31-33 The difference seems much smaller in 2014 (figure 6) between VWC at 5cm an 12cm. How do you explain this? Wouldn’t be relevant to show the entire year 2014?

P9 L12-13 Can you really compare VWC values from a flat and sloped terrain like this? There are of course differences in soil types and drainage properties (induced by the slope)!

P9 L20-23 From what you say (P7 L23: These ice “veins” were not observed in 2015) and show in Figure 6, these two observations (ice veins and VWC values) were not done the same year. Your sentence suppose the opposite and is misleading.

P9 L25-26 Your statement is clearly not always correct (see in figure 4 for example aii) ST vs NH, aiv) NL or NH vs ST avi) NH vs ST). Please be more cautious.

P9 L26-27 This sentence doesn’t bring any interesting information. Consider removing it!

P9 L31-36 How do you explain the negative correlation? Try to clarify that part of the discussion (P9 L31 to P10 L6).

P10 L7-11 As mentioned above, you are misleading the reader by putting together observations from different years. Increase in SWE and ice veins was observed in 2013 and 2014, reduced infiltration in 2015 mostly.

P10 L16 Not sure Webb et al. is appropriate here.

P10 L16-17 How can you justify from figure 4 that not ice veins were observed on south facing slope?

P10 L24-25 Why slower melt rates would induce lateral flow in the snowpack? Please clarify!

The paragraph P10 L29 to P11 L7 is mainly a repetition of elements already mentioned in paragraph (P10 L7 to L28). Revise this part of the discussion and remove redundancy.

P11 L15-16 You are referring to the wrong figure (Figure 4c) and consider revising the sentence “displaying the increased the storage capacity”.

P11 L20 Why are you saying that north slope can generate streamflow later in the summer (and referring to Figure 6bii)? Please clarify!

P11 L21-37 I am a bit skeptical that an increase of 170% in SWE can only explained by lateral flow in the snowpack. And how do you explain the increase at the toe of the south aspect slope? I would suggest that the rise of the water table is a major contributor to this change in SWE (as you mentioned at the end of the discussion).

P12 L4-7 I don’t understand how you justify the different behaviors between 2015 and 2013-2014 (notably the link between melt and soil behavior). Just because of the shallower snowpack? Could you clarify this point please?

P12 L26 figure 53….

P12 L28 You state: “The south aspect hillslope did not display evidence of this phenomenon”. In 2013 and 2014, you observed an increase in SWE at the toe of the south facing slope (Figure 4 bi and biii). How do you explain it? I would lean towards a rise of the water table in the valley (encompassing ST F and NT sites) that would partly bias all measurements.

In Figure 2a, modify the x-axis to have a tick every month.