CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
ScoredCARConservation-Based Forest ManagementCALIFORNIA, USRegistry: Moved to another programGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Big River / Salmon Creek Forests

Developer: The Conservation Fund

CAR-408 ↗

#711of 1689 in United States#462of 948 in Climate Action Reserve (CAR)

Moved to another program

The project has moved to another GHG program; any new credits are issued there, not on this registry.

Climate Action Reserve: “Transitioned”

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.0 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Scored2026-09-17low confidenceLatest verified monitoring: 2014-12-31

evidence:47/47registry documents analyzed · 4red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

Analysis

A California conservation-based forest management project with a strong 100-year permanence mechanism (perpetual dedication to the State Coastal Conservancy) and VVB-verified additionality, but undermined by multiple regulatory violations, a project-specific modeled baseline, a 0% leakage deduction, and an extreme 11.8× over-delivery relative to the ex-ante lifetime estimate. Safeguards documentation is notably weak, with no FPIC, no grievance mechanism, and no benefit-sharing description.

Red Flags

4 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    No ICVCM information

    No CCP label and no ICVCM decision found for this project's methodology.

  • Removal or reduction

    Not determined

    The registry data do not say whether these credits are removals or reductions.

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    No Article 6 authorization

    No corresponding adjustment: the host country can also count this reduction towards its own target.

    Source: registry label

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2007
48,12438,5209,604
2008
379,414141,19036,226
2009
321,566272,52522,475
2010
235,349234,0000
2011
243,539109,1922
2012
782,824157,8240
2013
182,536182,5360
2014
219,805213,7830
Total2,413,1571,349,57068,307

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceGeneral Methodologyv2.1
Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →