Two reviewers commented on the manuscript. The main points were: (i) highlight the new findings of the study compared to others, (ii) how to conclude from results at the observation points to the entire flow system, (iii) comparison of results with findings from other barrier islands. It was also recommended to use an analytical model for reconstruction of the lens which I think would be a very good idea, but as also noted by the authors in the answer, would require an extra study and some more data.
The authors answered in detail to the main and other specific comments. Considerung these changes in the manuscript accordingly, a revised version of the manuscript can be uploaded and, I am happy to then reconsider the manuscript for publication.

The more critical reviewer agreed to all the changes and acknowledged the improvement of the mansucript. Therefore, the publication can be accpeted for HESS after some minor technical corrections. I suggest that the new text included in the conclusion should be given in the discussion - because this is still discussion and not the conclusion. Then, also delete "by contrast" (start of second paragraph of conclusion).
Thank you for your contribution.