Dear Authors
Thank-you for your extensive revisions which have mostly satisfied the referees. One referee has not responded to the request to re-review but I think you responded reasonably to their comments. You may have seen that the other two are pleased with your response and have only “minor” comments now. Please see below their comments and a few details from myself. You should respond to these; on final publication all these comments will become public and so the quality of your response will be visible. I will treat this last stage as “Technical corrections” meaning that I do not need to see the paper again. However, it will be copy-edited and you should check that the final version retains your intended meaning.
Thank-you for publishing in Ocean Science.
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance

Review 1
“Dear Authors;
Thank you for considering my comments and making adjustments accordingly. I think you addressed my questions. I have some minor comments/observations :
- at page 11 lines 13-14 you state: "Another limitation of the study is not considering
changes in bed morphology and thus, bottom roughness." I would rephrase this sentence a little bit. Including morphodynamics not only has impact on bed roughness, but also has an effect on tidal propagation (as you rightfully state in the abstract) and output parameters such as intertidal area (your figure 8). Making reference to a poster (Hagen et al., 2019) is quite weak when plenty of peer-reviewed journal publications on models with morphodynamic adaptation are available (and some of which you included already elsewhere). Here I give you some references that include relevant discussions and other references on the matter (some of which are mine, without insisting to refer to these specifically, but merely as inspiration for addressing the issue properly in your work).
Also, you state in the discussion that you simply do not consider bed level changes, but it would have been nice to find some elaborations in the discussions on the potential impact of bed level changes on your results. You choose not to do that (and it may be challenging), but probably also miss an opportunity to make the work more appealing in that sense.
- Ganju, N. K., & Schoellhamer, D. H. (2010). Decadal-timescale estuarine geomorphic change under future scenarios of climate and sediment supply. Estuaries and Coasts, 33(1), 15-29.
- Elmilady, H. M. S. M. A., van der Wegen, M., Roelvink, D., & Jaffe, B. E. (2019). Intertidal area disappears under sea level rise: 250 years of morphodynamic modeling in San Pablo Bay, California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 124(1), 38-59.
- Lodder, Q. J., Wang, Z. B., Elias, E. P., van der Spek, A. J., de Looff, H., & Townend, I. H. (2019). Future Response of the Wadden Sea Tidal Basins to Relative Sea-Level rise—An Aggregated Modelling Approach. Water, 11(10), 2198.

It would be nice to see some of your explanation of the ES implementation of the MARS model, back in the manuscript.

I am very happy with the nice R1-5 figures in your response!

Mick van der Wegen”

Review 2
“I really appreciate the thorough revision of the manuscript. All questions and suggestions have been answered in depth.
A technical note:
Please make sure that the orientation of the x-axis in Figure 6 fits to the description.”

Editor (myself)
Page 1 line 15. “basin” -> “bay”?
Page 1 line 17. You might add that the shift to enhanced sediment export has implications for dredging and/or shoreline/coastal defence management (as you discuss in the paper).
Page 2 line 23. Omit first “The”
Page 2 line 27. Omit “the”
Page 3 line 1. “. . sea”
Page 3 line 5. “. . Additionally, tidal changes . .”
Page 3 line 32. “are” -> “is”

Page 4 line 24. Better “. . rate itself does not feature in the model runs). . .”
Page 4 line 29. “or” -> “and”.
Page 5 line 17. “. . analyses were carried out both on observed and on simulated . .”

Page 9 line 33. Omit “such”.
Page 10 lines 7, 8. I think you need to say how the Ria de Aveiro lagoon and Western Scheldt convergence / friction (or ??) are different from the previous examples so that their “tidal asymmetry is insensitive to SLR . . to deepening”.
Page 10 line 34. “. . coupling, and would make an . .”
Page 11 lines 7,8. “. . parts of Chesapeake Bay (Lee. . .) and San Francisco Bay . . .”
Page 11 line 19. Omit first “The”.

Page 13 Acknowledgements. I think you might thank all the referees for helpful suggestions improving the paper.