Dear Chris,
Dear co-authors,

we have received three anonymous referee comments for your manuscript
``Cohesive and mixed sediment in the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS v3.6)
implemented in the Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Wave Sediment-Transport Modeling
System (COAWST r1179)''.

All of the referees rate your manuscript "Good" or "Excellent" in all of the
four rubrics (Scientific significance, Scientific quality, Scientific
reproducibility, Presentation quality)

Anonymous Referees #1 and #2 recommend minor revision, while Anonymous
Referee # 3 recommends major revision. Anonymous Referee #1 has already
expressed his/her satisfaction regarding your reply to her/his comments.

You have posted comprehensive replies to the referees comments, and I find
that all of the referees' questions, comments and recommendations have
been adequately dealt with.

As Anonymous Referee #3 recommends major revision, I have taken more time
to go over this referee's comments and your reply (Editor review).
I find that anonymous Referee #3 essentially asked for the fundamentals
to be better presented (more comprehensive literature review).
The requested changes thus mostly fall into category "Scientific quality"
in our synthetic assessment form. In that category, your manuscript
was rated "Excellent" by Anonymous Referee # 3. I am therefore not sending
out your revised manuscript out for review to the referee, but restrict
this round to an Editor Review only, the more since the other two referees
requested minor review only.

Upon examination, I find again that you have replied in an adequate manner to the referee's
comments and amended the text accordingly.


I am pleased to inform you that I can now accept your manuscript for publication
in Geoscientific Model Development, subject to technical corrections

There remain a few minor points to clarify or correct.

(1) In your reply to the points that Anonymous Referee #3 raised in RC4
(https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-267-RC4) in the paragraph on page C3
that starts with ``These four publications ...'', there is some confusion:
you indicate that
- Mehta et al. (2014) - the first of the four listed by the referee -
is now cited in a sentence added to Section 1.2. This does not
happen to be the case. The paper by Mehta et al. (2014) is not cited
at all.
- Mietta et al. (2009) has been added to the Discussion where you itemize
processes that are not included in the model. This does not happen to be
the case either. Mietta et al. is cited in a new sentence in Section 1.2.
Could you please check this, so that the reply to the referee's comments
is consistent with the text of the revised manuscript.

(2) There is some section/subsection numbering mismatch in the revised manuscript:
- 2.2 has 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 as subsections (but no 2.2.2)
- 2.3 has 2.2.1 (sic) and 2.2.2 (sic) as subsections (instead of 2.3.x)
Please correct the numbering.

(3) Finally, please make sure that the information about SVN revisions in the
manuscript will be consistently updated: at lines 4 (title), 17, 712 and 738
in the revised manuscript, where either 1179 or XXXX is indicated. Please also
include the correct contribution number at line 735.


Thank you for considering Geoscientific Model Development for the
publication of your model developments.


Best regards,

Guy Munhoven