Skip to main content
CFCUrban Forest CarbonUnited StatesGeneral Methodologyv2.1

Sewickley Hills Forest Carbon Offsets

CFC-sewickley-hills-forest-carbon- ↗

#43of 389 in United States#20of 59 in City Forest Credits (CFC)

6.3/ 10
Integrity
7.5
Transparency
5.5
Claim Safety
5.5
Documentation
6.5

Audit Analysis

The Sewickley Hills (Buerkle Woodlands) urban forest preservation project under the City Forest Credits standard demonstrates solid additionality (combined test, VVB-confirmed), strong permanence (40-year commitment with permanent restrictive covenants, no reversals), and a 10% buffer pool. However, the project-specific baseline, a contradiction between the validation and verification reports on the claimed ERR (4,908 vs 5,453 tCO₂e), and the absence of a stated leakage deduction percentage introduce moderate uncertainty. The verifier confirmed the claims are accurate or conservative, which mitigates over-crediting risk.

Red Flags

  • Contradiction in claimed ERR: the validation report (2022-11-14) states 4,908 tCO₂e while the verification report (2022-11-11) states 5,453 tCO₂e; the 14.8× pro-rata over-delivery relative to the ex-ante lifetime estimate warrants scrutiny despite the verifier's 'conservative' finding
  • Leakage was described as 'quantified' in the verification report, but the specific deduction percentage was not found in any extracted document, leaving the magnitude of the leakage adjustment unverified
  • Baseline is project-specific rather than jurisdictional or standardised, and no baseline reassessment date is recorded in the available documents

Credit Vintages Exhausted

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2022
4,9084,9080
Total4,9084,9080

Risk Indicators

Additionality

Combined test, VVB-confirmed

Permanence

mixed evidence / unresolved risk

Leakage

Quantified but % not stated

Baseline

Project-specific, no reassessment date

Safeguards

Mentioned but FPIC/grievance not detailed

Double-claim

CCP & CORSIA status not stated

Where to buy

+ Know where to buy this?

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

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis ProvenanceScored2026-09-02General Methodology v2.1

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

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

Does not modify the score.

[email protected]

Pipeline re-run with new documents

Have updated documentation not yet included? You can request a new run of the pipeline with the new inputs.

Submit Documents