Dear Authors
I am asking for “minor revision” in two respects:
(a) Detailed use of English for clarity
(b) To incorporate some of your responses into the final version of the manuscript. Although final publication is accompanied by the reviewer comments and your responses, the final version needs to be “self-contained” and not dependent on the reader referring to the comments (which they will find difficult and generally not do).

Page 6 equation 5c and page 7 equations 6, 7b, 7c, 8 and lines 7, 10, 12. You use the nabla symbol which has already been used for the gradient operator. Please find another symbol to use in these places.

Equation 8. Is this correct? It gives (Uw,2/Uw,1) proportional to (wavelength)**2 whereas I would expect non-linearity to decrease with wavelength.

Page 10 line 2. Omit “column”?

Page 10 lines 11-12. Dean’s formula implies β has dimensions [L]**1/3 so you must state the units of β for its value to have meaning.

Page 12 line 29. Omit “up”
Page 12 line 32. I think you want “adjacent vortices, causing a residual recirculation into the estuary inlet in front . .”
Page 13 line 13. “inlet estuary” -> “estuary inlet”?

References: Franz et al. 2017. This is referred to a lot. Will it be published (volume and page numbers) in time?

You responded to both reviewers about coupling between MOHID and SWAN, and to the first reviewer about resolving the advection-diffusion equation, surface wave breaking. However, these responses are only in your “author’s response”. I think the manuscript needs to include in the respective places some reduced (but not zero!) form of these parts of your response. Otherwise readers are likely to be asking the same questions as the first reviewer.
Your response about lateral friction is now puzzling because I can see nothing about it in the revised manuscript.
Likewise regarding your response to the second reviewer about the morphological acceleration factor; there needs to be enough in the manuscript to avoid other readers wondering if there are problems with it being too large.

Thank-you for your revisions. I am just asking for a few "technical corrections" before publication. [In addition the final version will be copy-edited and you should check that your intended meaning is retained.]

Page 6 lines 29-30. Better ". . extrapolated following the Rouse profile to the middle of the near-bed layer, which . ."

Equation 8. Despite your reply I am still unsure about the dependence of (8) on wavelength or wavenumber. It shows asymmetry increasing strongly with increasing wavelength - which is not what you said in your reply.

Page 9 line 15. ". . is provided . ."
Page 9 line 22. Better ". . updated in MOHID, and the different fields . ."

Page 13 line 20. Delete "inlet"?
Page 13 line 26. Better ". . to represent the vertical variation . ."

Page 14 line 1. ". . estuary inlet . ."?