Division attorney outlines how nonprofits qualify for OHV grants and flags trail‑camera MOU

Nicole, the division attorney for the Division of Outdoor Recreation, told the Off‑Highway Vehicle Program Advisory Council that OHV grant eligibility follows a narrow statutory path: applicants must be a federal or state agency, a political subdivision of the state, or a nonprofit incorporated in Utah under the Division of Corporations (chapter 6A) that promotes OHV recreation.

"These are not the Utah Attorney General's opinions, they're just mine," Nicole said as she opened the presentation, then walked the council through DOR's two‑prong test: (1) incorporation/filings in Utah and availability of foundational documents (articles of incorporation and bylaws) and (2) practical evidence that the organization promotes OHV recreation (project history, site visits, board composition, and organizational intent). "Ultimately it's the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate eligibility," she said.

Why it matters: OHV registration fees fund the grant program, and DOR said it cannot lawfully award money to organizations that cannot be verified under the statute and applicable rule. Nicole told the council that DOR will look to official corporate filings in Utah's Division of Corporations database, the organization's articles and bylaws, evidence of past OHV projects, letters of support from land managers, and relevant public materials when determining whether a nonprofit's stated purpose aligns with motorized recreation.

DOR gave a concrete example: the Foundation for America's Public Lands underwent extended vetting because it was incorporated outside Utah and performed projects spanning motorized and non‑motorized recreation. After discussions and the foundation's agreement to incorporate in Utah, DOR concluded it likely meets the OHV nonprofit test because its projects and partnerships were not detrimental to motorized access.

The attorney also addressed the use of social media in eligibility reviews: DOR may review an organization's official social channels as part of a practical assessment of organizational intent, but staff said online material alone would not be used to deny an application without follow‑up and verification. "If we look at that and you have some concerns, those are concerns that DOR addresses very carefully to try to understand why the stated intent in the articles of incorporation and bylaws is different than what they're actually advocating for," Nicole said.

Trail cameras and wildlife law: Nicole told the council that Utah Code (UCA 23A‑5‑307) restricts year‑round trail cameras because the state holds wildlife resources in trust. The division's near‑term plan is to execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Wildlife Resources to permit camera use for monitoring trail usage in ways that comply with wildlife protections and state law. The MOU was described as in draft and not yet available for public circulation.

Privacy and enforcement: Council members asked whether trail cameras raise privacy concerns. DOR staff replied that cameras on public lands generally do not raise a legal privacy bar but acknowledged social concerns and said the MOU will address operational details. For post‑award compliance, Nicole noted that breach of contract is handled under grant‑agreement remedies and could include clawback of funds or ineligibility for future awards.

Next steps: Staff said DOR will continue to refine eligibility checks, circulate the MOU language with DWR when available, and implement stronger progress reporting and site‑visit procedures for awarded grants.