Skip to content
Wild Salmon Center at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Wild Salmon Center

The mission of WILD SALMON CENTER is to promote the conservation and sustainable use of wild salmon ecosystems across the pacific rim.

$3.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$1.2M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$6.0MArts & Culture$1.5MScience & Tech$110kAnimals$63kEducation$10k
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $2,269,849, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,105,004 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $835,155 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 $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $28k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $746k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.5M
$97,126
Median grant
3
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS$1,227,628
SIUSLAW SWCD$261,885
ROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL$202,999
COOS BAY WATERSHED ASSOCIATION$201,618
NEW VENTURE FUND CO SALMONSTATE$100,000
MIDCOAST WATERSHEDS COUNCIL$97,126
NEHALEM BAY WATERSHED COUNCIL$91,308
QUILEUTE TRIBE$52,554
COAST SALMON FOUNDATION$16,000
QUINAULT INDIAN NATION$12,349
CURRRY WATERSHEDS$6,382
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%California Trout Inc: $38k → 10%The Regents of the University of California: $75k → 16%Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership: $28k → 14%Upper Nehalem Watershed Council: $247k → 11%NEHALEM BAY WATERSHED COUNCIL: $91k → 12%Waterwatch of Oregon: $25k → 12%Curry Soil and Water Conservation District: $239k → 14%SIUSLAW SWCD: $262k → 15%CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS: $1.2M → 16%Coos Bay Watershed Association: $417k → 17%Washington State Fish and Wildlife: $25k → 9%QUILEUTE TRIBE: $53k → 12%Stand for Salmon: $500k → 10%ALASKA RANGE ALLIANCE: $100k → 22%The Regents of the University of California: $20k → 16%Upper Nehalem Watershed Council: $162k → 11%Lower Nehalem Watershed Council: $42k → 12%Applegate Partnership & Watershed Council: $130k → 13%Curry Soil and Water Conservation District: $213k → 14%Siuslaw Soil and Water Conservation District: $138k → 15%CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS: $141k → 16%COOS BAY WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: $202k → 17%Stand for Salmon: $55k → 10%Upper Nehalem Watershed Council: $34k → 11%Lower Nehalem Watershed Council: $35k → 12%Applegate Partnership & Watershed Council: $54k → 13%Curry Soil and Water Conservation District: $95k → 14%Siuslaw Soil and Water Conservation District: $110k → 15%Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians: $128k → 16%Coos Bay Watershed Association: $142k → 17%Upper Nehalem Watershed Council: $32k → 11%Applegate Partnership & Watershed Council: $25k → 13%Curry Soil and Water Conservation District: $77k → 14%Siuslaw Soil and Water Conservation District: $80k → 15%MIDCOAST WATERSHEDS COUNCIL: $97k → 16%COOS BAY WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: $87k → 17%Rogue River Watershed Council: $225k → 13%Curry Soil and Water Conservation District: $29k → 14%Siuslaw Soil and Water Conservation District: $36k → 15%MIDCOAST WATERSHEDS COUNCIL: $62k → 16%Coos Bay Watershed Association: $45k → 17%ROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL: $203k → 13%Siuslaw Watershed Council: $205k → 15%Midcoast Watersheds Council: $36k → 16%Rogue River Watershed Council: $155k → 13%SUIUSLAW WATERSHED COUNCIL: $187k → 15%ROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL: $69k → 13%Siuslaw Watershed Council: $112k → 15%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.

Which US states its grants reach

AK
WA
MT
OR
CA
MO
VA
MD
DC

Grants abroad, by region: $818k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

North America (Canada and Mexico)$818k · 100% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: SKEENA CONSERVATION GRANT · DEAN CONSERVATION

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 10% of Wild Salmon Center’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 82% of the giving stays in OR; by stated purpose, 71%.

Wild Salmon Centerlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 9.9% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.1M · 18 repeat orgs$360k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +139% since the first grant, against +39% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
12

Total granted

$7.1M
$279k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+139%
+39%

Still filing today

67%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $81k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentAnimalsArts & CultureRecreation & SportsEducationOther
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

  • CW
    COOS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION
    7× · 2018–2024 · $912k · revenue +139%
  • RR
    ROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL
    7× · 2018–2024 · $679k · revenue +219%
  • CW
    CURRY WATERSHEDS NONPROFIT
    7× · 2018–2024 · $665k · revenue +679% · 79% of their budget

Funded once

  • AR
    ALASKA RANGE ALLIANCE
    one grant, 2023 · $100k
  • NM
    National Marine Fisheries Service
    one grant, 2018 · $45k
  • TR
    THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $28k · revenue +54%
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
Wild Salmon Rivers

To conserve functioning salmon/steelhead eco-system at watershed levels, integrate angling activities with basic scientific research, collect raw data, monitor environmental functions, salmon/steelhead population dynamics, public…

Environment
2
Coquille Watershed Association

Coquille watershed association (coqwa) works collaboratively with communities and landowners to develop and implement voluntary watershed restoration, enhancement, and community engagement activities that promote healthy and resilient…

Food & Nutrition
3
Washington Water Trust

Wwt's mission is to protect and restore water in rivers and streams across washington state. washington water trust restores and protects water in rivers and streams and promotes sustainable freshwater management in washington, and, more…

Environment
4
Idaho Wildlife Federation

The Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF) promotes the conservation of Idaho's wildlife heritage and legacy of sporting opportunities for the current and future generations.

Animals
5
Fishery Foundation of California

To improve fisheries resources in the state of california.

Animals
6
Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council

The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is a local nonprofit organization that strives to enhance and restore habitat for fish and wildlife our community and for future generations. Our Board of Directors consists of seven members with…

Environment
7
Idaho Conservation League Inc

Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.

—
8
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
9
Trout Unlimited Inc

To conserve, protect, and restore north america's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.

Animals
10
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
11
Klamath River Renewal Corporation

Krrc's mission is to implement the klamath hydroelectric settlement agreement by removing four hydroelectric dams on the klamath river, restoring surrounding lands, and implementing required mitigation measures. (continued on schedule o)as…

Environment
12
Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board

The mission of the UCSRB is to restore viable and sustainable populations of salmon steelhead and other at-risk species through collaborative economically sensitive efforts combined resources and wise resource management of the Upper…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Salmon River Restoration Council; the most unlike its peers is Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

23 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. 23 of the 34 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/23
Grantees still filing
16/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COOS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: $912,225 · EnvironmentCOOS WATERSHED ASSOCIATIONROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL: $678,763 · EnvironmentROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCILCURRY WATERSHEDS NONPROFIT: $664,584 · EnvironmentCURRY WATERSHEDS NONPROFITSIUSLAW WATERSHED COUNCIL INC: $512,349 · EnvironmentSIUSLAW WATERSHED COUNCIL INCUPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL: $506,062 · EnvironmentUPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCILMIDCOAST WATERSHEDS COUNCIL: $230,935 · EnvironmentMIDCOAST WATERSHEDS COUNCILAPPLEGATE PARTNERSHIP INC: $209,271 · EnvironmentNEW VENTURE FUND: $200,000 · EnvironmentLOWER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL: $167,886 · Environment+3 more: $33,856 · EnvironmentSIUSLAW SWCD: $627,004 · OtherSIUSLAW SWCDStand for Salmon: $555,000 · OtherStand for SalmonIndividual grant recipient: $222,580 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $110,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAV…ALASKA RANGE ALLIANCE: $100,000 · Other+10 more: $300,163 · Other+10 moreSILETZ TRIBAL ARTS AND HERITAGE SOCIETY: $1,497,352 · Arts & CultureSILETZ TRIBAL ARTS AND…CALIFORNIA TROUT INC: $53,147 · AnimalsTHEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INC: $28,000 · AnimalsWASHINGTON COAST SUSTAINABLE SALMON FOUNDATION: $16,000 · AnimalsWILD FISH CONSERVANCY: $10,000 · AnimalsOREGON HUNTERS ASSOCIATION INC: $12,000 · Recreation & SportsTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Education
Environment$4,115,931Other$1,914,747Arts & Culture$1,497,352Animals$107,147Recreation & Sports$12,000Education$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSILETZ TRIBAL ARTS AND HERITAGE SOCIETY: $1,497,352 over 3y, 32% of budgetCOOS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: $912,225 over 7y, 20% of budgetROGUE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL: $678,763 over 7y, 18% of budgetCURRY WATERSHEDS NONPROFIT: $664,584 over 7y, 79% of budgetStand for Salmon: $555,000 over 2y, 45% of budgetSIUSLAW WATERSHED COUNCIL INC: $512,349 over 4y, 19% of budgetUPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL: $506,062 over 6y, 71% of budgetMIDCOAST WATERSHEDS COUNCIL: $230,935 over 7y, 12% of budgetAPPLEGATE PARTNERSHIP INC: $209,271 over 3y, 13% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $200,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLOWER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL: $167,886 over 3y, 18% of budgetCALIFORNIA TROUT INC: $53,147 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetWaterWatch of Oregon: $45,000 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetTHEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INC: $28,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS FUND: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSALMON RIVER RESTORATION COUNCIL: $17,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetWASHINGTON COAST SUSTAINABLE SALMON FOUNDATION: $16,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetOREGON HUNTERS ASSOCIATION INC: $12,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetAMERICAN RIVERS INC: $10,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWILD FISH CONSERVANCY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetNORTHWEST SPORTFISHING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: $7,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetWILD RIVERS LAND TRUST: $6,356 over 1y, 1.6% 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.

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.

National Fish and Wil…The Nature ConservancyThe Ford Family Found…PatagoniaorgResources Legacy FundThe Burning FoundationBonneville Environmen…The Roundhouse Founda…Meyer Memorial TrustThe Pew Charitable Tr…New Venture FundThe Oregon Community …
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC27× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · The Ford Family Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Resources Legacy Fund · The Burning Foundation · Bonneville Environmental Foundation · The Roundhouse Foundation · Meyer Memorial Trust · The Pew Charitable Trusts · New Venture Fund · The Oregon Community 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 Wild Salmon Center funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wild Salmon Center. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 76%
  • Siuslaw Watershed Council Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Applegate Partnership Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Rogue River Watershed Council: 94% of income from government
  • Midcoast Watersheds Council: 76% of income from government
  • WaterWatch of Oregon: 61% of income from government
  • Upper Nehalem Watershed Council: 52% of income from government
  • Curry Watersheds Nonprofit: 47% of income from government
  • Coos Watershed Association: 44% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
6rely 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.

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 34 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 Wild Salmon Center’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