Vegetation mapping is a complex process involving the interpretation of field and remote sensing data. Full field verification of the account area was not feasible, meaning future surveys may reveal inaccuracies in the digital mapping. Although the assessment was undertaken by experienced ecologists, agricultural scientists, and GIS analysts, limitations in site access and data collection may have had minor impacts on accuracy.

To address this, some survey points were adjusted to ensure correct vegetation types were sampled. However, several sites were inaccessible due to weed infestations or steep terrain. In these cases, measurements for large trees, canopy height, and cover were estimated from a safe distance, introducing a degree of uncertainty. Non-native plant cover and litter indicators were conservatively scored as zero, potentially underestimating actual conditions but ensuring caution in the results.

Future restoration activities, such as weed removal, are expected to improve access and enable more accurate data collection, ultimately enhancing the reliability of the environmental account.

Small patches of regrowth were grouped with adjacent remnant vegetation to streamline fieldwork, where inspections confirmed no significant differences in overall condition. This grouping was not applied to configuration indicators like patch size and connectivity, so the impact on condition scores is minimal.

Hoop Pine (Araucaria cunninghamii), although native to Australia, is not endemic to ecosystems in this account. Due to its current land use and planned restoration activities, it was excluded from large tree, canopy height, and cover metrics, but included in the non-native plant cover assessment. This may slightly reduce condition scores but allows for future flexibility if these trees are progressively removed.

Non-remnant areas, including a Hoop Pine plantation, were stratified based on their pre-clear Broad Vegetation Groups and Regional Ecosystems, rather than grouped into a single unit. Field observations showed minimal differences in structure and diversity, particularly in areas dominated by pioneer weedy regrowth species such as Acacia leiocalyx. This approach supports adaptable future restoration and monitoring. While it may influence individual sub-asset scores, it does not affect the overall Econd® score.

For riverbank ecosystems, plot dimensions were modified to suit narrow site conditions, an adjustment permitted under the method and unlikely to affect condition scores. Canopy cover was estimated from a safe distance using a laser rangefinder, which introduces some uncertainty.