Reply on RC3

Line 19: typo – ... can be used to estimate ... Done.


Introduction:
Line 25: 10 times the total height of the WT (to distinguish between hub height and total height) -Done.

Measurements:
Line 66: For each campaign… -Where did you place the seismic sensors inside the WT tower? In the center of the foundation or at the outermost edge inside the tower? With regard to the comparison of amplitudes presented later in the study, this should be explained briefly to ensure comparability.
-Sensors were placed at the outermost edge of the tower interior. A comment was added to clarify the exact location of the sensor (lines 68, 96, and 142-143).

Ground motion signals:
Line 129: I agree that the train traffic signals are dominantly visible below 10 Hz, but they can also be detected at higher frequencies over the entire displayed frequency range (Fig 3d).
-True, the text is changed accordingly.
Line 140: Again, where did you place the sensor? (see comment above) -A comment was added to clarify the exact location of the sensor.

Signals at place of emission:
Line 161 -165: How exactly did you determine the maximum value of a 10-min segment? Did you simply identify the maximum absolute value of all values within a 10-min segment? How can you ensure that this value is due to WT vibrations and not to any other noise sources? I recommend to calculate the 95 % or maybe 99 % -percentile of all absolute values within each 10-min time window in order to get a more statistically representative value.
-Yes, maximum amplitudes are taken per 10-min segment. It is a very quiet location and rarely transient signals are seen in the data which would not be connected to the WT operation. We checked that time windows are mostly free of these transient signals. By using approx. 360-550 time segments, we think trends seen are valid even if one or two time windows with signals not connected to WT operation would be included.

Fig 8: Please sort the legend labels by distance between seismic station and WT.
-Done.

Line 211 -221: This part needs more details for clarification. Again, how did you calculate the max values for seismic and acoustic data (see comment above)? Does your method correspond to the method described in Novoselov et al. 2020 (they used the maximum of the envelopes of the respective signals)? What is the outcome of this analysis and what can we learn from these results?
-We have added a passage to the manuscript to clarify this point (lines 220-231). -Done. :   Fig 13 and Fig 14: Please include the distance information for each station in the legend.

Amplitude decay
-Done. -We decided to move all graphics and text related to amplitude decay estimation at wind farm Lauterstein to the appendix.
Most figures: I recommend to change the y-axis labels to a unified unit of "PSD in db rel. to 1 (m/s)²/Hz" for all figures showing PSD spectra. -Done.
From a seismological point of view, it would also be nice if you could include the global models for high and low noise after Peterson (1993).
-The NLNM/NHNM is not shown because it includes only frequencies of up to 10 Hz which is rarely suitable for the frequency range shown in this manuscript.