Thank you for your careful consideration of the reviewers' comments. I see that most of the comments are addressed, but I make the following suggestions for revisions.

1. Page 7, line 7: insert “during the 2015 campaign” to make clear that the lack of stability measurements was only during the 2015 campaign and not during subsequent campaigns to avoid confusion.

2. Page 7, line 15: replace “finer” with “finest”

3. Page 7, line 16: eliminate “the few” because there are tens of studies comparing WRF simulations with stability measurements from field campaigns.

4. Page 7, near line 15: please acknowledge reviewer 1’s comment regarding the meaning of L_mo in complex terrain by including a sentence clearly stating that the 3-km resolution runs do not consider the complexity of the local terrain, which can affect interpretation of stability length, and cite the appropriate literature (perhaps https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.71 and references cited therein).

5. Throughout: why are “Diamond Scan” and “Transect Scan” capitalized (and inconsistently).

6. Page 9: very confusing as written. Try: “The average maximum deficits are 53% (55%) at 1 D downstream for the northeastern (southwestern) sectors. For downstream distances of 2 D and 3 D, in some periods the wake moves above or below the diamond scan plane and therefore, the wake is not entirely captured by the diamond scan. This misalignment means that deficit profiles measured with the diamond scan may not capture the wake center or the maximum wake deficit.”

7. Page 12, line 9: have you shown that gravity waves are completely responsible for the downward trajectory of the wake in stable conditions? (I think not: there is only a casual visual inspection to identify gravity waves, without the necessary analysis to support their identification as gravity waves as opposed to any other waves.) Smoke plumes follow terrain in stable conditions even without gravity waves. I recommend omitting the reference to gravity waves, so “During stably stratified conditions, wakes follow the terrain, resulting in …..”

8. Page 12: somewhere in the conclusions, the authors should repeat their response to reviewer 2 comment 2, that “The operational state of the turbine undoubtedly affects wake characteristics. These operational states may be defined by blade pitch angle (https://www.wind-energ-sci.net/1/221/2016/wes-1-221-2016.html), yaw angle error (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/524/1/012002/pdf)) , among other operational characteristics. Differences in wake characteristics observed with the diamond scan arise from a combination of angles between wake and scanning plane, atmospheric conditions, and the operational state of the turbine. Unfortunately, it is not possible with this dataset to isolate one of these factors.”

Minor: I also identified several English grammar issues, so please carefully review the entire manuscript again. My careful review of the conclusion section found the following:
1. Page 12: line 3: comma after “total”
2. Page 12: line 8: replace “is identified” with “emerges”
3. Page 12: line 8: “lofted” instead of “lifted”?
4. Page 12, line 8: comma after “conditions” and eliminate “the”
5. Page 12, line 9: replace “is dependent on” with “depends on”
6. Page 12, line 10: comma after conditions, omit “of” after despite
7. Page 12, line 11: replace “in” with “at”
8. Page 12, line 12: “that wake propagation” instead of “that the wake propagation”; “depends” instead of “depended”
9. Page 12, line 13-15: “answered: in some stable conditions the wake does follow the terrain, but in the majority of cases observed here, the wake does not follow the terrain.”

Hi Robert (et al.),
Thanks for your quick and comprehensive response to my request for revisions. The only outstanding issue is regarding gravity waves. Although you did remove the reference to gravity waves in the conclusion, the abstract and other text still refers to gravity waves when "waves" should be referred to rather than "gravity waves". I hope that you will be able to write a paper regarding gravity waves in this and other datasets, but references to them require more documentation. Please modify the references to "gravity waves" throughout.

Congratulations on a very nice contribution to the literature on wind turbine wakes!

Thank you all for considering Wind Energy Science as the publication body for this interesting manuscript.
The manuscript is now accepted for final publication.
Copernicus will contact you for further processing such as proof reading, the handling/quality of the figures and final lay out of the manuscript.

Best Regards

Gerard van Bussel
Chief Editor