CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index

Rated

Brush Creek

Standard
ACR
Methodology
ARB-US-FOREST (California Air Resources Board)
Registry
ACR-200 ↗ · Registered
Country
CALIFORNIA, United States
Credit type
Forest Carbon
Developer
Edward Miller Trust
Worked comparison example (English)

CarbonMeld's document-based assessment gives Brush Creek (ACR-200) 7.8 out of 10 (high confidence) under CarbonMeld methodology v2.2, analysed on 23 Oct 2026. The analysis read 17 of the 32 registry documents. It is CarbonMeld's own assessment, not a rating given by the registry or the standard.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 7.8 / 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%.

Methodology v2.2 · analysed on 23 Oct 2026

A fact the document-based rating needs was not collected when this page was analysed, so the page keeps its version 2.2 score. Missing: the buffer share (it is not among the facts read)

high confidence

evidence: 17/32 registry documents read · 0 red flags

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

How this analysis was made

Standard
American Carbon Registry (ACR)
Methodology
ARB Compliance Offset Protocol: U.S. Forest Projects How our current method reads projects of this type
Our method
CarbonMeld methodology v2.2 · analysed on 23 Oct 2026 · 17/32 registry documents read

Analysis

Brush Creek (CALIFORNIA, US) is an improved forest management project under the Compliance Offset Protocol U.S. Forest Projects (registry status Registered). 10 Offset Verification Statements are in the record; the readable ones cover 2013-12-10 – 2024-06-30 and are all Positive by the form's rule (no qualifying statement, which an adverse opinion requires; the opinion box itself is not read). The registry records 169,491 credits issued across 10 vintages.

Red Flags

No red flags in the documents read.

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 · read on 12 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    No ICVCM information

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

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: project sector

    Covers: the project type, not a label on individual credits

  • 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 · read on 12 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

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.

Credit VintagesExhausted

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2015
65,80600
2016
11,11400
2017
11,67800
2018
12,06800
2019
12,36000
2020
12,60000
2021
12,27600
2022
9,94500
2023
11,07000
2024
10,57400
Total169,49100

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 listings@carbonmeld.com.

⚑ Contest this rating

Profile & governance

Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System·Carbon credit ratings explained·Carbon credit due diligence checklist

Are you the project owner?

Full analysis (free for owners)

Owners get free access to the full analysis of their own project: the reasons behind the score, the red flags and the documents read. Write to us from your organisation's email address.

hello@carbonmeld.com →

Metadata correction (free)

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

Does not modify the rating.

hello@carbonmeld.com →

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 →

Cite this page

CarbonMeld (2026). Brush Creek (ACR-200): CarbonMeld analysis, methodology v2.2, analysed on 23 Oct 2026. https://carbonmeld.com/projects/brush-creek/.

The citation names the analysis by its methodology version and date; the score itself is on this page.

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, score factors, detailed analysis, and 32 registry documents (17 read).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day, or 300 with Pro at €49 + VAT per month). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Enter your email to pay with crypto

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.