This is an interesting paper combining a modeling approach and a statistical analysis of suspended sediment dynamics in the Venice Lagoon. The paper is well written, but the findings bring very little new insight, in comparison with its companion paper Part I on erosion dynamics.

Although this is probably more of an editorial issue, I am questioning the relevance of making two papers out of this study. Indeed, both papers have basically the same structure, with very similar introduction and method sections. In addition, the results of both studies are highly correlated (see lines 300-305), which is not surprising as SSC dynamics (Part II) is itself highly correlated with erosion dynamics (Part I). To further support this, the authors keep referring to the companion paper on erosion dynamics to discuss their results on suspended sediment dynamics (section 3). 

In the companion paper, the choice of a peak over threshold analysis is very natural, as erosion processes are physically triggered when the bed shear stress exceeds a threshold value. Here, the choice of such an analysis is less obvious, and determining an SSC threshold is highly arbitrary. Although the authors justify quite elegantly their choice of threshold value (line 212), they should at least discuss the sensitivity of their results and conclusions to this threshold value.

Something that intrigue me is hidden in lines 310-311. I am wondering if the results of this paper can be combined with the results of the companion paper to better constrained the erosion coefficient “e” (equation 3, companion paper). The value of this parameter is highly uncertain, given the values encountered in the literature range over more than one order of magnitude. If that is possible, that would be a very interesting result of this study.

In conclusion, I don’t deny the interest of this study, but I suggest to merge both companion papers into one.

Other minor remarks:

• Lines 97-98: This somewhat contradicts results from the companion paper about erosion work, which increased then decreased over time, due to increase inter arrival time.
• Lines 124-127: Provide the Strickler equation.
• Lines 128-136: Provide the equation of the BSS induced by wind waves and the equation of the maximum (total?) BSS.
• Line 153: Missing prime for the total BSS?

This work is part 2 of the study that introduces the idea of using random processes to model the wave-tidal-induced events along the coastal area. The Venice Lagoon, Italy is chosen as the study site due to the availability of multiple bathymetry surveys over the past centuries. The WWTM model coupled with STABEM sediment transport model is used to simulate morphodynamics. Statistics are extracted from simulation results. The author found that over-the-threshold suspended sediment concentration (SSC) events follows can be modeled as marked Poisson process. As Part 1 paper, this work paved a new way to upscale short-term simulations in a wave-tidal environment to long-term, while following the statistical characteristics. This paper has a very similar structure to the Part 1 paper, as well as employed identical analysis using morphodynamics results. However, different from hydrodynamics simulations, simulating the dynamics of SSC is much more complicated which means more uncertainties. Hence, I recommend the author show more validation of the modeling results. Maybe some changes also need to be adapted in the analysis to address the differences. Secondly, although I understand the idea behind the "threshold of SSC",  in my opinion, the author did not show the physical meaning or mathematical definition of it, which makes it not well-defined, I recommend the author add more work to its definition. Thirdly, I believe when dealing with a time scale over 4 centuries, the climate can play an important role, and the analysis should take into consideration of it.  As the revision in Part 1 paper, I recommend the author add more model details, and the choice of constants. There are more things that need to be addressed, which are listed below. Overall, I think this work has good potential, but still needs more work.