Dear authors,

Having now reviewed your submission along with the AE and reviewer reports, I am pleased to formally accept this paper for publication in Esurf. I am sorry for the additional delay in confirming this decision while I have been away for fieldwork.

In reading the final version of your manuscript, I noted the following minor editorial points, which you might consider addressing before uploading your final manuscript files, or alternatively double checking during the proof stage. These are all very minor points which may also be caught during copy-editing, and I do not see them as holding up accepting your paper, but I think they will be worth your time to consider addressing.

Thank you for submitting your interesting work on large woody debris recruitment and deposition to Esurf.

Josh West

Minor editing comments to consider:
Line 39 - add a space between intense and meteorological
Line 49 - "a" should presumably be "as"
Line 50 - "positive effects" is an unclear value judgment; positive in what respect? please consider clarifying or rewording
Lines 60 and 62 - "financial damage costs" is repetitive; I suggest removing "costs"
Line 67 - how is "valuable" defined here? I suggest removing this unnecessary qualifier
Line 78 - "improving" rather than "improve"
Line 109 - isn't this the Methods section? might be clearer to refer to the specific section by number
Line 115 - "moraine" not "moraines"
Line 120 - "at" not "ate"
Line 120 - "monthly" not "montly"
Table 1 - I assume "Av." means "average"; it may be better to specify "mean" (assuming this is what you intend here)
Line 143 - what are "poor" riparian conditions?
Line 147 - what is "extensive" rainfall (long duration? spatially extensive?)
Line 150 - remove "have"
Line 155 - remove "e.g." (or remove "such as" in prior line)
Line 168 - remove "all" before "the"
Line 171 - "which corresponded to"
Line 213 - I suggest rewording to say "More detailed sediment budgeting..."
Line 214 - may be better to say "outside the scope"
Line 225 - "conducted" would be clearer than "elaborated"
Line 232 - "hillslope" not "hillslopes"
Line 257 - "was" not "were"
Line 268 - "was" not "were"
Line 279 - space between Figure and 1
Line 293 - "stand" not "stands"
Line 310 - remove "and", replace with a comma
Line 402 - replace comma with semicolon before "however"
Line 582 - "work" not "works"
Line 588 - "although" would be better here that "albeit"
Line 592 - "included" not "including"
Line 603 - remove "a"
Line 618 - presumably you mean "plain" not "plane"?
Line 630 - replace comma with semicolon before "however"
Line 642 - remove "therefore" since it's used the next sentence as well
Line 644 - "outside the scope"
Line 702 - remove comma after "Similarly"
Figure 1 - please provide a north arrow, and specify in the caption the projection system used; you might also consider adding x/y coordinates to panel (a) but this is not strictly necessary
Figure 1 - please provide details on the data sources used for the maps
Figure 3 - the version of this figure in the Discussion paper reproduced poorly (at low resolution); please make sure to upload a high resolution version and check that this displays well in the proofs