Big Hole River Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363644051
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Divide, MT, USA
- Phone
- 4065607089
- Rating
- 95
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $22,272
- Expenses
- $485,025
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
People named in this filing
- Brian Wheeler (Executive Dir.)
- Sarah Ashworth (Chairman)
- JM Peck (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Enhance the Big Hole River and surrounding area.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Big Hole River Foundation projects were set up to preserve, protect, educate and enhance the Big Hole River and Surrounding Area. The Foundation encouraged, solicited donations, grants and contributions from the general public. During 2025, and after more than three decades of dedicated work on behalf of the Big Hole River, the Big Hole River Foundation ended operating under its own entity. It's program and its Executive Director moved under the umbrella of Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Inc. and its program Save Wild Trout; a move driven by the need to expand its water quality monitoring model to all four rivers of the Jefferson Basin: the Big Hole, Beaverhead, Ruby, and Jefferson. The Big Hole River Foundation transferred its assets to Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, Inc., a 501(c)(3) entity that shares a similar purpose. The Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, Inc.'s program Save Wild Trout will continue the mission of the Big Hole River Foundation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 99
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 3
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 98.4%; rating input score 98
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -2,077.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $477K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.