I have reviewed the responses to reviewer comments and am satisfied that the authors have addressed the questions of scientific importance raised by the reviewers. I have suggested a number of technical corrections below my signature. In particular, some clarity is needed with regard to figure captions and labels.

I have assigned this a "publish subject to technical corrections" as I am confident that the authors can address these points without further comments from me, as they are mainly regarding style and grammar, rather than any issues with the science.

This is a nice contribution to Esurf and does of good job of highlighting the considerations that should be made when calculating bedload flux from echosounder data. I look forward to seeing this paper published.

Thank you,
Claire Masteller


Suggested technical corrections-

Throughout:
-Please be consistent with "single-beam" or "single beam", both are currently used.
-Upon introduction of BEP, please use consistently or correct all to "bed elevation profile"
-Please be consistent with how figures are referenced within the text


Figures:
F1: Please add a quantitative color bar to C or in the caption state the maximum and minimum elevation values. Please change the scale-bar to white for visibility.
In panel F, I believe the x axis should be "Distance along BEP (m)", please correct.

F2: Figure captions are not consistent with figure. Please correct. Please add full legends to panels A and B. I believe the colorbar on D is elevation, please add this label in words, as well as an indication of units. Please clarify the abbreviations used in Panel E.

F3: Please add legend to panel C for consistency with other legends in Figure 3.

F4: The titles on the panels are confusing. I am not sure what is what and what is being plotted where. I recommend that the authors revise this figure heavily to make these differences more explicit.
Why are there not 3 lines on each plot to be consistent with each spacing set, as indicated by the labels and panels? Why are there only date labels on some of the figures and not others?
The panels also seem inconsistent between A, which seems to include all three methods, and B and C, which do not. Please revise for clarity and consistency between all plots. The purple and blue are also difficult to discern in my PDF version. Please change "Xcorr" to "Cross-correlation" for consistency and clarity.

Main text:
P1
L4: replace "of how to extract" with "for extraction of", or consider revising sentence to "There are various echosounder sampling methodologies to extract bed elevation profiles."
L13: Consider changing "total load" to "total transported load"
L14: add citation where there is a "?"
L20: Consider changing "have been shown to result from" to "can be produced" (obtained would also work)

P2
L9: Remove comma after "Sediment and water discharge conditions"
L11: Please replace "the norm" with a less colloquial term

P3
L2: Consider changing to "that *the* resulting...estimates *from each method*..."
L8: Please introduce the abbreviation "BEP" in an earlier instance of "Bed elevation profile" or change to "bed elevation profile (BEP)" here.

P4:
L19: Remove rogue "." After (Fig. 1D)

P5
L4: add semicolon after "only (Fig. 1A,1F)"
L23: Change "affects" to "effects"

P6:
L22: I suggest providing the difference in values derived from these cross-correlation estimates vs. manual calculation directly in the text here to illustrate this underestimation.
L25: Please remove reference to Figures 5 or 6, unless they are missing from this version of the text?
L29: Consider combining final two paragraphs

P7:
L11: Comma after "When bedrooms are in disequilibrium"; correct to "recorded"; correct to "single"
L12: Change "effects" to "affects"

P8:
L11: Consider combining this sentence with next paragraph.
L21: Change to "timescales"
L29: Consider combining this sentence with previous paragraph or following paragraph.

Dear Authors - thank you for your ESurf paper corrections. I am delighted to inform you that your paper has now been accepted for final publication subject to technical corrections - as identified in this message by the AE. Thank you once more for your work with this paper, it is much appreciated.
All the best
Tom Coulthard