Agricultural Effects on Streams and Rivers: A Western USA Focus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a substantial amount of literature as one would expect for a review, but some literature around stream and river conditions is over 20 years old. Do the same conditions exist now?
I was expecting to see some recommendations and a substantially longer discussion section. You describe protection and rehabilitation of riparian zones improves biological status and infer policies are warranted in addressing the problem. That is a very broad ranging statement and doesn't add anything new the discussion or present likely areas for further investigation.
I have provided a marked up copy with additional comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your helpful reviews of our manuscript. We believe that they greatly improved the clarity of our messages. Our point-by-point responses are below.
We apologize for being slow to respond.
We trust that this revision will now be acceptable for publication in the special issue of Water.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an important topic, talking about agricultural impacts on water quality of streams and rivers in the western USA. Some good points are posted along with some brief discussion. Overall, I think the paper is well written and easy to follow up, but it is short with limited information. I would recommend if the authors could add some case studies and based on the case studies to expand the review paper. Also, some discussion and recommendation are so broad and general, I think the readers would like to see more detailed discussion.
Author Response
Thank you for your helpful reviews of our manuscript. We believe that they greatly improved the clarity of our messages. Our point-by-point responses are below.
We apologize for being slow to respond.
We trust that this revision will now be acceptable for publication in the special issue of Water.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is improved significantly and all comment/suggestions/clarifications have been addressed adequately.
There are a few minor points that should be considered and make the paper more readable.
Figure 2. What does it tell the reader Table 1 and Table 2 doesn't. Does it add any value that Tables don't? For readers outside the US, the Map with State names might be useful.
Also Line 135/6 you describe important patterns that emerge from the BMP studies. I assume the dot points ( line 140-172) present your findings on Case Studies. Clearly indicate this. Likewise with Lines 179 to 200 for livestock- exclosure case studies.
Make sure in formatting of Tables words don't wrap.
Author Response
As requested, we added state names to the map on Figure 2.
We also inserted the requested text on lines
128-129: Nonetheless, we found that several important patterns emerged from catchment and riparian BMP studies, as listed below (Table 1).
166-168: However, we found that several important patterns emerged from catchment and riparian BMP studies, as listed below (Table 2).
In addition, I have inserted new text and one more reference to the previous revision. Please use this revision rather than the one sent earlier.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments have been addressed and the manuscript has been improved. The current version is ready to move forward.
Author Response
thank you
