Thank you for your thoughtful comments on our manuscript.  We have incorporated them into our revised manuscript, as follows:

1. You pointed out that we should provide more specific information in the Abstract about the kinds of field protocols being suggested.  We have revised the text at line 52 to read:

“Using standardised and comprehensive data reporting with due attention to precision and reproducibility—including site characteristics, boulder dimensions, complete positional data, tide characteristics, and geodetic and local topographic datum information—will help ensure complete data retrieval in the field.”

2. We have also replaced the phrase “longitudinal monitoring” in the abstract with “long-term monitoring”, in response to your request for greater clarity.

3. You stated both in the PDF and in your reviewer comments that we should include information about chronologic constraints on landscape reconstruction. To that end, we have edited the first paragraph in section 6 (lines 740 et seq.), which now reads as follows:

“Determining emplacement age(s) of coastal boulder deposits, and (for ancient example) establishing chronological constraints on the landscape at the time of boulder displacement are very desirable goals.  Such data permit construction of event chronologies, and by comparison with other archives such as wave climate or earthquake records, can help distinguish between storm and tsunami deposits.  Furthermore, landscape paleoreconstruction permits estimation of sea level and coastline position at the time of displacement, which is important for calculation of forces required for transport.”

4.  They were also about a half dozen in-line suggestions for word choice and phrasing, that we will address as we continue to revise.

Many thanks for your time and insight!

We thank Professor Lario for his kind comments on the quality and value of our manuscript. 

We recognise his team's interesting contributions to understanding coastal builder transport, but, as shown in figure 2 of the manuscript, there are hundreds of coastal boulder papers published in the past decade, and it is not possible for us to site every deserving study. Our present bibliography with almost 180 references represents a wide ranging and balanced overview of both foundational and current research on the topic. We are sorry we cannot include every relevant paper.

We thank Professor Lario for his kind comments on the quality and value of our manuscript. 

We recognise his team's interesting contributions to understanding coastal builder transport, but, as shown in figure 2 of the manuscript, there are hundreds of coastal boulder papers published in the past decade, and it is not possible for us to site every deserving study. Our present bibliography with almost 180 references represents a wide ranging and balanced overview of both foundational and current research on the topic. We are sorry we cannot include every relevant paper.

Thank you for your positive and constructive comments on our manuscript.  We are grateful for your feedback on the quality of explanation of the rationale objectives, and we appreciate your opinion that the work is timely and important.

Thank you also for the line edits on the PDF.  We will go through them point by point and evaluate the grammar and punctuation choices. We agree with you that smooth reading is important and we will make any necessary edits.