Dear Katixa and Co-authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). Your paper “Comparing the efficiency of hypoxia mitigation strategies in an urban, turbid tidal river, using a coupled hydro sedimentary–biogeochemical model“has been critically reviewed by outside peer reviewers. After the discussion round, the reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following major revisions. We invite you to resubmit your corrected manuscript after addressing all reviewer comments.
When resubmitting your manuscript, please carefully consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments. For a revised manuscript version, in order to make easier and faster for the reviewers to check the final manuscript, we require two separate documents:

1. Author response, it is Revision Notes explaining how and where (citing line number) each point of the Editor's/Reviewers' comments has been addressed. Should you disagree with any part of the reviews, please explain why. At the end of this revision notes a version of the revised manuscript showing the new/changed text using track changes or highlighting. To facilitate further review, add line numbers in the text.

2. A version of the revised manuscript without showing the new/changed text using track changes or highlighting.
Final acceptance is, however, contingent upon satisfactory revision along the lines suggested. Please be sure to upload your revised manuscript back to the electronic database.

Sincerely,

Mauricio González
NHESS associated Editor
[Professor on Coastal Engineering, IHCantabria/Universidad de Cantabria]

The manuscript was greatly improved and all raised issues on the initial submission were properly discussed. I agree with reviewer2 about second-round minor comments. The paper could be accepted subject to minor revisions recommended by reviewer 2.

Dear Katixa and co-authors,
Your corrected version of the paper “Comparing the efficiency of hypoxia mitigation strategies in an urban, turbid tidal river, using a coupled hydro sedimentary–biogeochemical model” has been satisfactorily revised for the reviewers and me. I am pleased to report that the results of the peer review process are favorable and that the reviewers recommend publish as is. Thus, I agree with their recommendations and I accept to publish the paper as is.
Sincerely,
Mauricio González
NHESS Editor
Sea and Ocean Hazards
[Professor on Coastal Engineering, IHCantabria/Universidad de Cantabria]