Per FIRIS - The Mosquito Fire is now 4,223 Acres.
Edit: standard disclaimer of accuracy is not certain and should not be accepted as fact with out ground truthing.
● Perimeter map viewable here -
https://bit.ly/mosquitofire https://share.watchduty.org/incident/1275/reports/7906
Is CMD still TNF net?
The perimeter layer over the Google map layer is not accurate. Use caution when referencing this map. Your watch duty screenshot appears accurate however.
Report of a tree across the road near Chickenhawk.
Tanker 910 laying down some paint:
All those dead-standing trees aren’t going to make life any easier 
Interested to hear how many gallons of retardent MCC and Grass Valley load today. Those ground crews are doing an amazing job in horrible conditions
It’s a hot day to be loading. I’m wondering how many gallons of retardant are being loaded across Oregon and California combined. There are four major aerial operations right now. Every tanker in California seems to be in the air, and more just went up into two different spots in NorCal (S2s out of Redding, SEATs out of Chester).
My “tankers” filter, which doesn’t even include a lot of the helos:
It’s standard USFS policy that any aerial drop within 150’ (I believe) of perrenial or intermittent waterways (waters of the State) require higher approval. It’s been often ignored in recent years, but the FS is currently facing a suit for breaking their own rules on said aerial applications, so there’s currently a little more scrutiny surrounding the issue.
Hmmm
Not my memory
We always carried a retardant restriction map in our BC vehicles and the ATGS had same info. It was up to them to interpret and stop short.
Fairly new rule, maybe tenish years, and it’s been pretty much ignored in recent years. I’ve never seen those buffers identified on any ops map.
…which implies that those groups which are suing seem to think a little retardant in the water is worse than burning down the forest and having the pH skyrocket from the ash, not to mention the associated erosion 
Playing the devil’s advocate, fish and other aquatic organisms have survived through hundreds of thousands of years of fire, but the added stress of petrochemicals, diseases introduced through foreign water, and accelerated erosion due to human soil disturbance may be too much for them.
Sure, when the forests were burning regularly at normal intensity that’s the case, but in several instances I’ve seen first hand in this vicinity, after a high-intensity burn, the creeks are almost completely sterile in the aftermath, especially in steep terrain where erosion causes the creek to aggrade, flatten out, and silt up until water runs only a few inches deep.
Edit: Let’s have this discussion when this incident is over and we can do so in retrospect.
this is good new topic stuff…but off this topic…with all due respect for both sides
That’s a common misinterpretation of the data. High intensity fires have increased proportion wise, but not in acreage. We can suppress low to medium fire activity, but the big burns still get away.
Edit : Sounds good. Another time.
Info here for reading pleasure. Rules made in 2011 updated with Supplemental EIR in 2020. Each region has identified areas, including TNF
You don’t have to like it but it appears to be a guiding document
https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/fire/chemicals
MOD NOTE
Please stay on topic. Several of the mods are now deployed and the rest are trying to keep things straight. We will not have time to notify you, we will simply delete the posts and move on. Thanks for your consideration
Looks like A230 is starting to look at the Ralston Ridge finger. Hopefully formulating a plan for that area
Air resources did some good work today, hopefully buying time for boots on the ground to make inroads overnight.
