Some limitations that should be considered in interpreting this data:

• Mapping of pre-colonial condition of vegetation is based on the best evidence and modelling, but we cannot know for sure what forest types were on these sites before land clearing occurred. By using a ‘high accuracy’ account, we can create some surety, as it can be said with high confidence that the landscape would have been completely covered in native forests. However, within each property, the representation of each forest type has been estimated based on the best available data.

• As this account uses the ‘high accuracy’ method for measuring habitat quality, subtleties in each indicator have been reduced to assessed scores out of 5. This condenses a range of conditions into a bracket that inevitably leads to some sites of slightly varying condition receiving the same score.

• The benchmark koala population for the account was developed using the Phillips and Callaghan 2011 and cross-referenced with WWF-Au SAT survey data throughout the Northern Rivers. This covers over 250km of coastline and includes 100+ individual SAT surveys in a range of habitats. We cannot know the number of koalas that occupied the Northern Rivers pre-colonisation, nor how that population would have left indirect evidence of its presence through scats and scratches on trees. The benchmark has been set with the best available knowledge but assumes that this data could represent a past condition that is unknowable.

• Condition targets are estimated based on current site conditions but also consider the expected land management practices for the projection time period of 25 years. Some of the properties within the aggregation are multigenerational land holders, and land ownership is unlikely to change, whilst some are more likely to change hands during the 25-year period. Whilst land management within CEA areas cannot change significantly due to 100-year permanence obligations of the carbon project, other forested and even cleared areas may be subject to drastic land management changes that could affect the future Econd®.

• The scoring system for one threat category, Weeds, is somewhat ambiguous in the method. We interpreted this indicator to be a total of five categories defined in our data collection form with the following instructions:
  “Relevant weeds are any species capable of growing in a multi-stemmed, woody shrub or tangling vine habit likely to prevent or disrupt the dispersal of a koala. Weeds to be included are lantana, broadleaf privet, narrowleaf privet, tobacco, giant devil's fig, broad-leaf pepper, castor oil plant, leucaena, cockspur coral tree, balloon vine, cats claw vine. Weeds not included are: crofton, milkweed, cobblers pegs, purple top, ochna” The five categories to be chosen from are: 1 = Head high, 2 = Shoulder High, 3 = Hip High, 4 = Less than Hip High >10% cover, 5 = Less than Hip High <10% cover.

• Where revegetation has occurred across these properties within the aggregation, these planting works are aiming to replicate forest types that would have existed on the site prior to clearing by early settlers. Species selection for this activity was undertaken using a range of reference materials. This includes the NSW PCT database, pre-clearing mapping, local ecological knowledge and comparison with reference communities and existing remnant/regrowth vegetation on or nearby the site. Whilst this work is undertaken by highly skilled staff, there can be no assurance that the species included in the mix are exact compared to what would have been on the site prior to European settlement, but rather it is the best representation of the estimated forest based on the data available.