Dear Authors,
I have now examined the reviewers’ comments, your replies and revised manuscript. The manuscript does a very nice job of advancing calculations of sediment transport rates using a distribution of local shear stress rather than the traditionally used reach-averaged shear stress value. Both reviewers emphasized the study’s high significance and found the paper to be very well-written and the study well explained. I found that you did a very nice job in addressing the reviewers’ comments in your reply to their comments. However, there are a few reviewer comments that I would like the authors to expand on in the text, in addition to some additional small revisions I would like the authors to make in order to polish the manuscript before publication.

• Make sure that common names for plants are in lowercase except for those containing a proper noun (e.g., Douglas, Oregon). Please correct these instances on L98-100 (i.e., ‘big leaf maple’, ‘white oak’, ‘Oregon white oak’, ‘alder’, ‘black cottonwood’ & ‘Douglas fir’). Also, if ‘white oak’ and ‘Oregon white oak’ refer to the same species, please be consistent and use the same name.
• Although the authors addressed Referee #1’s comment regarding Figure 1 by adding lat/long ticks, additional context is needed for international readers to be able to easily locate the study area. Please provide an additional smaller-scale inset map to show where Oregon is located within North America to guide international readers. You should also spell out ‘Oregon’ in the caption for international readers that are not familiar with US state abbreviations.
• Both referees raise the issue that a subsurface-based equation is used rather than surface-based sediment transport equation. Although this study is very valuable in providing more accurate predictions of bedload transport, the use of a subsurface- rather than surface-based equation is the one drawback in this study. As Referee #2 said, “a surface relation [should] be inherently better at representing low flow transport.” Although the authors provide an explanation why they chose to use the subsurface-based approach in the revised version because it was simpler to implement, I would like the authors to more directly address this issue in the Introduction. For example, in the sentence on L45-48, the authors imply that the drawbacks of previous equations are that they are based on reach-average shear stress estimates or subsurface grain size information. Since this study addresses (only) one of these previous drawbacks, I would like the authors to state this more explicitly in the Introduction and discuss potential drawbacks in sediment transport estimates with basing predictions on subsurface grain size data in the Discussion.
• Referee #2 raised an interesting issue, as you state yourself, in her GC1 that a local dimensionless shear stress should be calculated using both the local shear stress in addition to the local grain size. You provide a very nice reply to the referee’s comment explaining that it is both very complicated to quantify and less sensitive than changes in shear stress. However, as other readers may have the same concern, you should also provide a shorter version of this discussion in the text (suggested in the end of 4.1).
• The wording in the added sentence in L339-342 needs slight editing. Change to either “the small number of flow events” or “the few flow events.”
• I appreciate that you addressed Referee #1’s GC1 in L314-323, but please provide examples and references of existing bedload equations here using reach-scale shear stress values. You already have these in the Introduction, but please point out a few of the most important equations for the readers here in the Discussion as well.

Best Regards,
Lina Polvi Sjöberg

Dear Authors,

Thanks for taking the time to address the referees’ and my comments. I believe that your manuscript has benefited from the additional clarifications and explanations, and I am happy to recommend it for publication. In the copy-editing phase, please make sure that you are consistent with your use of hyphens (e.g., ‘sub-surface based’ or ‘subsurface-based’).

Best, Lina

Dear Authors,
Thank you for your submission to ESurf. I am delighted to inform you that your paper has now been accepted for final publication. Thank you for your diligent work with your clarifications and explanations in the revisions.
All the best,
Tom Coulthard