Skip to content
Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc

Unite and support Montanas community-based conservation networks to promote healthy and productive watersheds.

$105k
Granted FY2024still arriving
16
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$19k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0187% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Environment$310kCommunity Improvement$9kFood & Nutrition$8kEmployment$7kPublic Benefit$4kOther$0
02FY2024 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 16 grants below total $100,402, the rows itemized in this filing. The $104,590 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,188 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k12 grants · $45k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $55k
$4,994
Median grant
1
States reached
$26k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Yaak Valley Forest Council$19,371
Bitterroot Water Partnership$13,871
Gallatin River Task Force$11,262
Upper Yellowstone Watershed Group$10,608
Prickly Pear Land Trust$7,954
Lake County Conservation District$7,500
Broadwater Conservation District$5,000
Sun River Watershed Group$4,994
Centennial Valley Association$4,500
Clearwater Resource Council$4,200
Lolo Watershed Group$3,000
City of Missoula Stormwater Utility$2,939
Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalit$1,875
Montana Discovery Foundation$1,836
Mineral County Economic Development$1,250
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 71% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Broadwater Conservation District: $5k → 9%Montana Discovery Foundation: $2k → 9%Custer Gallatin Working Group: $6k → 9%Lolo Watershed Group: $3k → 9%Park County Conservation District: $12k → 10%Gallatin River Task Force: $11k → 10%Stillwater Valley Watershed Council: $8k → 10%Common Ground Project: $1k → 10%Flathead Basin Commission: $232 → 11%Granite Conservation District: $8k → 11%Bitterroot Water Partnership: $14k → 11%Beaverhead Conservation District: $5k → 12%Mineral County: $4k → 13%Winnet ACES: $8k → 13%Blackfoot Challenge: $50k → 16%Big Hole Watershed Committee: $8k → 16%Green Mountain Conservation Dist: $6k → 17%Yaak Valley Forest Council: $19k → 17%Lake County Conservation District: $9k → 18%Hill County Conservation District: $242 → 18%Clearwater Resource Council: $7k → 9%Gallatin Conservation District: $5k → 10%Gallatin River Task Force: $4k → 10%Upper Yellowstone Watershed Group: $11k → 10%Bitterroot Water Partnership: $10k → 11%Centennial Valley Association: $5k → 12%Mineral County Economic Development: $1k → 13%Petroleum County Conservation Dist: $4k → 13%Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group: $12k → 17%Yaak Valley Forest Council: $15k → 17%Lake County Conservation District: $8k → 18%Clearwater Resource Council: $4k → 9%Ruby Valley Conservation District: $4k → 10%Upper Yellowstone Watershed Group: $11k → 10%City of Missoula Stormwater Utility: $3k → 9%Madison Conservation District: $7k → 10%Missoula Chamber of Commerce: $1k → 9%Montana Forest Owners Association: $1k → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

73%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$518k · 8 repeat orgs$194k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +37% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
23

Total granted

$518k
$165k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+37%
+8%

Still filing today

63%
39%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentFood & NutritionPublic BenefitOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • BW
    BITTERROOT WATER PARTNERSHIP
    2× · 2023–2024 · $24k · revenue +37%
  • SR
    SUN RIVER WATERSHED
    2× · 2023–2024 · $19k · revenue +420%
  • GR
    Gallatin River Task Force
    2× · 2023–2024 · $16k · revenue +150%

Funded once

  • BC
    BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +50%
  • GW
    Gallatin Watershed Council Incgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $16k · revenue +83%
  • LC
    Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group
    one grant, 2023 · $12k · revenue -32%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership
Environment
2
Gallatin Wildlife Association

Promote research and actions to save wildlife.

Animals
3
Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Inc

Upper missouri waterkeeper protects fishable, swimmable, drinkable water throughout the 25,000 square miles of montana's upper missouri river basin of montana. to accomplish this mission we actively engage with citizens, stakeholders and…

Education
4
Swan Valley Connections

Maintain the swan valley's unique natural resources and ensure that a vibrant human community can sustain itself through stewardship, education, economic viability, and conservation on public and private lands.

Environment
5
Wood River Land Trust Co

The wood river land trust's mission is to protect and sustain the treasured landscapes and life-giving waters of the wood river valley and to inspire love for this special place for generations to come.

Environment
6
Watershed Restoration Coalition for the

The organization is dedicated to restoring water quality, fisheries, and wildlife, and protecting the agricultural heritage and open space of the upper clark fork river basin of southwest montana. the organization pursues these goals by…

Environment
7
Scenic Montana Trails
—
8
Scrubgrass Creek Watershed Associat Ion

Watershed and rivers restoration, preservation and protection

Environment
9
Friends of Butte Creek

The friends of butte creek work to protect, restore and enhance the natural habitats of wildlife in the butte creek watershed

Community Improvement
10
Montana Trout Unlimited

To conserve, protect and restore montana's coldwater fisheries and watersheds.

Recreation & Sports
11
Crooked River Watershed Council

To promote stewardship of the Crooked River Watershed and its resources and to ensure sustainable watershed health, functions, and uses for optimal conservation and benefit.

Environment
12
Save our Gallatin Front Inc
Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Big Hole Watershed Committee Inc; the most unlike its peers is Winnett Aces Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 40 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
8/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Various Charitable Recipients: $364,631 · OtherVarious Charitable RecipientsPark Conservation District: $34,009 · OtherPark Conservation District+21 more: $88,965 · Other+21 moreBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $49,833 · EnvironmentBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INCYAAK VALLEY FOREST COUNCIL: $34,066 · EnvironmentYAAK VALLEY FOREST COUNCILBITTERROOT WATER PARTNERSHIP: $23,621 · EnvironmentBITTERROOT WATER PARTNERSHIPSUN RIVER WATERSHED: $18,681 · EnvironmentSUN RIVER WATERSHEDGallatin Watershed Council Inc: $16,132 · EnvironmentGallatin Watershed Council IncGallatin River Task Force: $15,758 · EnvironmentGallatin River Task ForceLower Clark Fork Watershed Group: $12,400 · EnvironmentLower Clark Fork Watershed GroupCLEARWATER RESOURCE COUNCIL: $11,019 · EnvironmentPRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST: $7,954 · EnvironmentSTILLWATER VALLEY WATERSHED COUNCIL: $7,500 · EnvironmentBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC: $7,500 · Environment+4 more: $10,701 · EnvironmentWINNETT ACES INC: $7,500 · Food & NutritionTHE COMMON GROUND PROJECT: $1,250 · Public Benefit
Other$487,605Environment$215,165Food & Nutrition$7,500Public Benefit$1,250

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $49,833 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetYAAK VALLEY FOREST COUNCIL: $34,066 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetBITTERROOT WATER PARTNERSHIP: $23,621 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetSUN RIVER WATERSHED: $18,681 over 2y, 12% of budgetGallatin Watershed Council Inc: $16,132 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetGallatin River Task Force: $15,758 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetLower Clark Fork Watershed Group: $12,400 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetCLEARWATER RESOURCE COUNCIL: $11,019 over 2y, 6.7% of budgetPRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST: $7,954 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSTILLWATER VALLEY WATERSHED COUNCIL: $7,500 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetWINNETT ACES INC: $7,500 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC: $7,500 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCentennial Valley Association Inc: $4,500 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetMONTANA DISCOVERY FOUNDATION: $1,836 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetMISSOULA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $1,250 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE COMMON GROUND PROJECT: $1,250 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetGALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST: $365 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC ↗
  • Who funds YAAK VALLEY FOREST COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds BITTERROOT WATER PARTNERSHIP ↗
  • Who funds SUN RIVER WATERSHED ↗
  • Who funds Gallatin Watershed Council Inc ↗
  • Who funds Gallatin River Task Force ↗
  • Who funds Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group ↗
  • Who funds CLEARWATER RESOURCE COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds PRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds STILLWATER VALLEY WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds WINNETT ACES INC ↗
  • Who funds BIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC ↗
  • Who funds Centennial Valley Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds JEFFERSON RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds MONTANA DISCOVERY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MISSOULA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
  • Who funds THE COMMON GROUND PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds GALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The High Stakes Found…PatagoniaorgMontana Trout Foundat…National Fish and Wil…Cadeau FoundationThe Kendeda FundThe Nature ConservancyFirst Interstate Banc…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
The High Stakes FoundationMT22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The High Stakes Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Montana Trout Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Cadeau Foundation · The Kendeda Fund · The Nature Conservancy · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 40 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Montana Watershed Coordination Council’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home