Dear Becky,

Many thanks for submitting your revised manuscript. I am pleased to see that you have responded robustly and in detail to all comments by the three reviewers, all of whom are very positive about your manuscript.

I have given the tracked-changes manuscript a final read-through myself, and I have a few remaining very minor technical comments, as listed below. I'm confident you will be able to make these corrections very quickly, so I am recommended that your manuscript is Published Subject To Technical Corrections.

Many thanks, and congratulations on your unique findings and reporting them in an excellent paper.

All the best,
Stephen Hicks.


[Line numbers below refer to those shown in the marked-up / tracked-changes document.]

1) Line 6-9: This is quite a long sentence and has quite a few sub-clauses. Could you maybe consider splitting it up into sentences to make it a bit more readable? Also, I think there is comma missing on Line 8 between “lockdown” and “severely”.

2) Line 43: I don’t think “BC” has been defined as an acronym before that point. Also, the full version of “British Columbia” is used in many other places. Please check throughout for consistency.

3) Line 61: Change “resulted due to” to “resulted from”.

4) Line 77: Change “including R25AC” to “including station R25AC”.

5) Line 100: Please add a couple of commas (highlighted with stars below) to improve readability here. Something like: “Prior to 2020, 9 public sensors maintained by Natural Resources Canada, the BC Oil and Gas Commission, the BC Seismic Research Consortium*,* and the Geological Survey of Canada*,* existed within the KSMMA boundary, along with 6 co-located accelerometers poised to better capture higher levels of ground motion from larger seismic events”.

6) Line 164: Local magnitude values in other places in the paper are given to one decimal place, which reflects the typical error of computed ML. Maybe also give these values to one decimal place? See also Line 209.

7) Lines 240-248: Even accounting for Reviewer 2’s Specific Comment #1, I find that much of this added text in response to the reviewer is very similar to what is in the first paragraph of Section 3.3. To make the text more concise, maybe you could have another read of both sections to see what is more appropriate for the Results section versus the Discussion section?

8) Line 266: I am not sure what “scenario change” is referring to. Please could you check this.

9) Line 387: Please change “the spatial migration of events” to “the possible spatial migration of events”.

10) Line 476: Please change “method” to something like either “mechanism” or “process”.

11) Line 500: Please consider changing “the previous trapping of fluids” to “the trapping of fluids previously injected” (if I interpret this correctly!). "Method" to me seems to relate more to a scientific process.

12) Lines 514-516: You say a “low magnitude of completeness” related to lockdown, but in response to Reviewer 1’s Comment #5, you also say that you cannot directly compare the pre-lockdown and during-lockdown Mc. However, in Figure 3, you show the Mc = 1.0 for the whole catalogue. So I am wondering if this sentence should be re-jigged a little? It would be neat to have shown a lower Mc during lockdown, but if you were not able to directly compare the two catalogues, then maybe you should add a sentence about this in the paper, rather than just solely responding to the reviewer, as this will be a common question asked by readers of your paper (I suspect)?

13) Figure 1: Could you please widen this figure to a larger page width so that the text in the legend can be easily read without zooming-in. Please also double-check that the sizes are most suitable for rest of the figures.

Many thanks for your interesting manuscript. Please refer to the thorough comments by Topical Editor Stephen Hicks, who finds that these few technical corrections should be doable quickly and without any further iteration.