Fire Experts Looking Into
Certification Program

By Colleen Schreiber

KERRVILLE - A group of professional and private experts in the field of prescribed burning met here recently to discuss the possibility of implementing a certification program for prescribed burning.

There was considerable discussion about what constitutes a trained prescribed burning specialist, how such an accreditation program should be set up, what it would take, and how it would affect those involved both positively and negatively.

San Angelo-based Extension wildlife specialist Dr. Dale Rollins told listeners that talking about burning requires a paradigm shift.

"We can look out across the rangeland and envision what those cedars are going to look like in five, 10, 20 years from now," Rollins said. "If we don’t move pretty quickly, we’re going to lose a teachable moment."

Bobby Young, associate director of Forest Service Protection, has been with the Texas Forest Service since 1969.

"I’m the mean ‘ole fire guy, the guy who calls complaining about those fires that you let get away. Also the keeper of Smoky the Bear. We occasionally let him out to wreak havoc on prescribed burners," Young said.

"The Texas Forest Service has long been involved with prescribed burning. You don’t have to convince us that burning is a useful management tool," Young told the crowd.

Training for prescribed burners, he noted, is made difficult by the simple fact that Texas has a wide variety of vegetation types.

"It would be better if it was all pine or all cedar or all grassland, and we had similar terrain and similar land ownership patterns, if we didn’t have any houses, hospitals, roads, airports, if we were all burning for the same reasons, if every time we lit a fire the smoke went straight up and was sucked up through some kind of black hole in the atmosphere, and if these fires went out on the designated boundary lines, then I think we would have a pretty easy job of coming up with a training package that we could all live with," he remarked.

"None of the above, of course, is true, so I think attaining a uniform training package will be a difficult task at best."

Young added that other states had successfully developed a training package, and that Texas needs to look to those who have gone before in developing such programs. He also reminded that there is a wealth of training material and expertise already available. Those sources, he insisted, "should not be thrown out in our quest to come up with this training package."

In developing such programs, Young suggested that the following questions have to be addressed: "Why do we need to do training? How should this training take place? Who’s going to do the training? When do we provide training and what’s a realistic timeframe for us to get this training package put together? Should training just be one time a year, should it be several, or a seasonal effort, etc.? Who’s going to foot the bill for the training? Who pays the salary for those who put on the training? Do we need to ask for special funds from the legislature for training, or should the training be fee-based? Should we go after special grants? Will there be a need for continuing education once they’re certified, similar to private applicators’ license? Who’s going to do the certifying, maintain the database, the paperwork, etc.? Should wildfire training be required as a part of prescribed burning training?"

Why do we need training?" Young asked participants. "Basically, I think we can say that we need to assure that we’ve done everything to prepare applicators who apply fire so that they can maximize results and minimize risk," Young said. "And it’s already been mentioned that we need to do training so that we can attract insurance carriers. That’s going to be a tough thing to do, however.

"We need to educate burners on the laws affecting burning, not only the TNRCC regs, but regs on smoke management, etc.," he continued. "We also need to educate people about what laws are applicable when a fire gets away and gets on someone else’s property."

Young said safety needs to be stressed above all else.

"We need to talk about techniques, how to plan for a good burn, how to execute and evaluate a burn. We also need to spend a lot of time talking about weather and how it will affect fire."

Topics that need to be addressed for actual training, he said, include the type of training — "Should it just be a classroom or classroom plus a field exercise? Or, classroom, field exercise plus experience, or should we automatically give approval to those who say they’ve been doing this for a long time and don’t need training?" he asked.

Who’s going to do the training?

"Do we continue to let all the agencies do their own training and let each agency train as many as they can?" Young asked. "Do we set up some kind of statewide multiple-agency training academy of sorts that goes around the state to train people, or do we instead continue to train with these regionalized training schools that are already in place? Maybe we need a training the trainer concept, where we train some landowners who go back and train others."

Some participants noted that a training program needs to include such things as public relations.

Dr. Wayne Hanselka, Extension range specialist, related a couple of success stories.

"If there’s any place in Texas where prescribed burning might have an uphill battle, it’s in Harris County on the outskirts of Houston," Hanselka remarked. "Last year, the Corps of Engineers had some land on the outskirts of Houston that they wanted to burn. Rather than just go through the procedures, a couple of Extension specialists called together 22 different entities out of Houston to sit down at a workshop. It involved entities such as the landowner, the Health Department, the air quality control board, TP&W, forestry, etc. I think we’ll see more of this in the future."

Another example was on a native prairie just north of Bryan-College Station. The most important aspect, Hanselka said, was that CNN was there and that footage portraying the positive aspects of prescribed fire was shown at least twice nationally.

Much of the discussion relating to the training aspect focused on who should be the target of the training program and whether such a certification program would, in fact, hamper prescribed burning activities or increase them.

Stan Reinke, representing the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, voiced some concern.

"I would like for this group to be very careful about guidelines that might come up for a certification program. We have basically an open-door policy in Texas to get prescribed burns done today, and I want to see it stay that way," Reinke told the group. "If it ceases to stay that way, then we’re going to limit the amount of prescribed burning we’re able to do in Texas."

Calvin Parnell, a former member of the Texas Air Control Board and member of the Secretary of Agriculture’s Task Force on Air Quality Issues now with the Department of Agriculture, contended that Texas doesn’t want to go to a permitting system because he believes such a system could be costly and time-consuming.

He also warned that it’s important not to lose track of the regulations controlling air pollution.

"The state of Washington no longer allows burning," Parnell said. "We have a very good state agency which regulates air quality. Right now they allow statewide burning, but there is an effort on the national scene to eliminate or limit prescribed burning. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing that state regulations be made more uniform. We need to watch these issues," he told listeners.

There was considerable discussion also on what role landowners would play if a certification program were put in place.

"In terms of certification, I agree that we need some professionals to train others, but in the same breath we must depend on ranchers to get the job done," Reinke stressed. "With the constraints today and the budget cuts, there will never be enough professionals. We’re going to have to rely upon the landowner. We need to keep that in mind as we discuss certification and regulation in regard to burning."

J.F. Cadenhead, Extension range specialist at Vernon, agreed that requiring certification could in fact limit the amount of burning that can be done if a certification program that can be conducted only by professionals is employed.

"If you think we’re busy now, if only agency people are certified we’ll be three times busier," Cadenhead remarked. "We need to consider that when we talk about excluding the landowner."

James Link, representing the TCU ranch management program, agreed.

"If you take ranchers out doing prescribed burning on their own property, I think you will meet with a lot of resistance from the ranchers," Link told the group. "If you’re looking for agency people to conduct the fires, it ain’t going to happen."

Another participant commented on the need to take into consideration that only 18 percent of the population is actively involved in farming or ranching. A lot of other part-time ranchers don’t think about agricultural or land resources on a daily basis.

"How do we deal with that segment of the population?" he asked.

David Begg, with Champion National, added similar comments.

"We have to remember that a lot of those people aren’t involved in ranching and resource management on a daily basis, but those people have a vote," Begg noted. "Those are the people who can push legislation through. Clear-cutting made all the sense in the world to us (the Forest Service) but we didn’t tell anyone what we were doing or why. We had better remember that when we start talking about all the benefits of prescribed fire. Those are the folks we have to reach," he stressed.

Hoss Smith, a volunteer fire chief, suggested that those who are already trained in fire suppression should be used to further the use of prescribed fire by training them and perhaps having them help train private landowners.

Bill Harris, an Extension Service representative, suggested using a group of highly trained specialists from all the agencies to train people for specific types of prescribed burning. The general program, Harris said, would be for the training of individual landowners.

But once again, several of the agency personnel on hand commented that time and money continue to be the primary constraint.

Ed Small, Austin-based attorney and lobbyist for several agricultural groups, talked to the group about the legislative process and what it would take to get such a certification program passed.

"There’s a way to pass legislation and there’s a surefire way not to get it passed," Small told listeners.

During the past session some 5000 bills were introduced by 150 House members and 31 senators, Small pointed out, and probably fewer than 500 passed. Prescribed fire, he said, would likely be deemed a high-profile activity by the legislature.

"Big smoke makes a lot of people nervous for a lot of reasons," he said.

On the other hand, Small noted, fire also has to do with the propagation of wildlife and all the other good things that burning enhances.

"Agriculture, wildlife, and the great outdoors is still something that we get a little boost from, a little sympathy for, a little upper hand when it comes to the legislature."

He warned, however, that the majority rules, and the majority certainly doesn’t lie in rural areas.

"There are more members in the Texas House from Dallas County than there are from west of I-35. So if Dallas doesn’t want it, we won’t get it," he stressed.

To pass a bill, 76 House members must be in favor and 21 of the 31 senators are needed, in addition to the governor’s signature, Small noted.

"One person can kill a bill. If the Speaker of the House doesn’t like it, it won’t pass. If the Lieutenant Governor doesn’t like it, it won’t pass. If the head of the committee that the bill is sent to doesn’t like it, it won’t pass; even the calendar committee chairperson can stop it. If the measure carries any kind of appropriations with it, the appropriations chairmen could hold the money back, meaning that you could have a program with no money in it."

Small said there are some 2000 registered lobbyists who can be hired for a fee. Sometimes, he admitted, the fee is more than a group can afford.

"Most lobbyists will tell you that who the client is is more important than who their lobbyist is, so it’s important that you as an organization get good, so that whoever you ask to help you will have an easier time greasing the skids," Small remarked.

First and foremost, he said, it’s critical what individual supporters do at home with their representatives and senators.

"You cannot be effective in carrying out bills if you haven’t done the work at home. You have to cover that base first, and it’s up to each individual to do that," he stressed.

"You have to take those who normally don’t have the opportunity to be around fire and get them out there. Find a reason to get them into the country and show them what you’re doing. If you’re doing a burn, contact your House member and senator. Invite them to come to your burn, or at least tell them you’re doing it, so that when they get that mad phone call they’re better prepared and can better understand, and they can help field and answer those mad phone calls," he explained.

"No matter if you go after legislation or not, you still should cover that base, because most of the hot phone calls eventually end up with a House member or senator.

"You have to do enough education with the right people before you get to January through March when the actual legislation process starts. Basically, you need to have the people lined up to carry the bill for you."

The second priority is to form coalitions.

"If you asked me to handle this legislation, one of the first questions I would ask is, ‘who’s going to be against you?’ If you say the Sierra Club would be against you, then I would know some things to do. If they’re for it, that changes the whole atmosphere. They should be on your side, he added, "because of the benefits that fire provides."

Trial lawyers, Small noted, might be an enemy and some municipalities might also intervene on the opposing side.

Key allies need to be the insurance companies and the Department of Insurance, and both of those groups, he stressed, need to see eye to eye. Other coalition friends should be obvious, such as the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers, the wildlife associations, Farm Bureau and all the other landowner groups who might take advantage of prescribed burning as well as educational institutions.

Once the bill is written, the next step is to go back to the coalition and make sure all parties agree with the language of the bill. Get everyone to sign off on the bill as early as possible, he said.

Small encouraged the group to start working on the legislative process right now.

"You should come out of this meeting with a decision of whether or not you’re going to go forward with legislation," he said. "If you start now and get your bill introduced early in the session, the rate of passage is higher."

When asked to speculate on the passage of such a certification bill, Small told listeners that there are pros and cons.

Small opined that private landowners who burn on their own land would likely have to be exempt from such a certification program.

"I know that landowners were very upset when there was certification on pesticide application. In my opinion, landowners need to get someone who is certified, not only for expertise but also because they need to pass that risk on."

Small, like others, believes that if a person is certified, all the risk is upon that person.

"And rightly so," Small said, "because that person will be the leader of this endeavor and the reservoir of the knowledge to make sure it’s done right."

He told listeners that insurance companies would likely focus in on that certified person, and such a risk needs to be given attention in the planning process.

That said, Small, like others, believes certification might reduce the risk and limit the cost of insurance.

"A couple of years ago the cost of workmen’s comp insurance was terribly high," he told listeners, "because compensation laws in Texas were tilted strongly in favor of the employee, and truth of the matter, it was the attorney representing the employee who was benefiting most. When the legislature finally got the attorney out as the middleman, the cost was reduced substantially."

There was some discussion about capping liability. Kirby Brown, with the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, talked about a House bill passed last session which limited liability for landowners who had recreational use on their property.

"Before that, many landowners were afraid to bring hunters on their property because they feared that they might try to take the ranch from them," Kirby explained. "We worked out an agreement with insurance companies which said that if a landowner bought liability insurance up to this particular capped amount, then after that point they were no longer liable.

"Maybe we could create a cap like this for burning," Brown suggested.

Small, however, said he doubted agreeing on a capped amount was a viable option.

Some of the state employees questioned the lawyer about personal liability when conducting burns on state time.

"My lawyer answer would be that I would be worried that there was some personal liability. If I was representing a landowner whose house burned down, that’s who I would likely focus on," he told the group. "The question would be whether or not the state employee had any governmental immunity. If you don’t lock this program into some state mandated program, the state employee would likely lose that governmental immunity."

Small added that severity of damages sometimes answers such questions.

He also told listeners that until recently he didn’t put a lot of faith in waivers designed to release landowners from liability.

"I used to say that they weren’t worth the paper they’re written on, but a recent Supreme Court case has changed that somewhat," he said.

He encouraged those using waivers to get a lawyer to look over such an agreement before putting it to use.

Rob Mitchell told listeners that when Texas Tech conducts prescribed burns, the landowner must sign a waiver that clearly defines the inherent risks of prescribed burning. It’s a process that they’ve been through with their lawyers.

"Many may think that it’s probably not worth the paper its written on," Mitchell remarked, "but at least we have a signature on a piece of paper which says that, ‘yes, I do accept responsibility,’ and as long as we operate under prescription and conduct that fire in a professional manner and follow the rules, our lawyers tell us we should be okay."