The authors improve and complement the initial manuscript. They answer important issues raised by the reviewers. However, I have the impression that more information could be necessary and the conclusions must be completely rewritten. But it should be evaluated with the revised manuscript.

EDITORS’ COMMENTS
Agustín Millares-Valenzuela
Manuscript: SOIL Discuss., 2, 647-674, 2015
Title: Development of a statistical tool for the estimation of riverbank erosion probability

The authors have made an effort to improve the manuscript and to responding the reviewers‘ comments. There are, however, some issues that remain unresolved which I consider relevant.

1) Although the variables identified by both models are in this case the bank slope and cross section, the authors should reflect somehow over the role of soil and its composition (texture, structure, ...) in these results, at least as possible line for future research.
2) The paper is fairly readable and not poorly written, but needs a careful editing for minor grammatical & syntax errors, missing commas, and format mistakes. Further, there are excess words in many cases, so a general tightening up of the writing would be helpful. For example, the paragraph (lines 20 to 25, page 4) added at this new version is redundant and could be integrated within lines 13-16 and 32-33 page 3.

The document is much improved and now fits better with the main scope of this journal.

Dear authors, I am glad to communicate that after revisions, your manuscript is now ready to be accepted for publication in SOIL.

Thanks a lot for your interesting contribution and chose SOIL for publication.

Best wishes

Jorge