Loudon drone finds underground hot spots after fire was believed out

Firefighters used an infrared-equipped drone to search the burned area for heat Monday, November 2. WMUR reported that the scan found the two underground hot spots, that crews put out additional hot spots Monday and that monitoring would continue through the week. The report does not separately confirm the extinction of each drone-detected spot. As of November 4, there is no verified later inspection declaring the entire site cold.⁠2

In our November 2 broadcast, we reported Chief Thomas Blanchette’s Sunday-evening assessment: there was no visible smoke, the nearly 10-acre fire was believed completely out, and a heat-sensing drone check was still planned. That check has now happened. Its finding supersedes the earlier belief that all burning had ended—not because a new fire was reported, but because heat remained beneath the apparently quiet surface.⁠3⁠2

The affected ground lies near Berry, Range and Old Shaker Roads. The Concord Monitor’s November 2 account, citing a Loudon Fire Department announcement, reported no injuries and no buildings damaged. It also said firefighters returned Monday with rangers from the New Hampshire Forest Protection Bureau to check for remaining hot spots that could reignite. That joint response does not establish which agency operated the drone.⁠1

The acreage figures remain estimates. WMUR’s follow-up put the weekend burn at at least 10 acres; the Monitor described around 10 acres. Those accounts update the earlier description of nearly 10 acres, but do not establish that the perimeter grew afterward. The reported development was residual burning inside the affected area, not renewed spread.⁠1⁠2⁠3

The underground discovery fits the difficulty crews had encountered from the start. Firefighters first responded Saturday evening, October 31, worked until about 1:30 a.m. Sunday and returned later that morning. Blanchette described a slow, creeping fire, with flames reaching about two feet high and burning extending below ground.⁠3

Part of the area had been logged a couple of years earlier. Logging debris, dead stumps and roots left firefighters with burning material they could not simply reach from above. They dug underground and used specialized tools to cut through roots and tree debris. The visible flames were only part of the work.⁠3

According to the fire department’s announcement reported by the Monitor, crews brought the blaze under control and left Sunday afternoon. By Sunday evening, Blanchette believed it was completely out. Those are successive assessments, not contradictory accounts: controlling a fire’s spread and confirming that every concealed hot spot is cold are different milestones. Monday’s scan showed why the second still mattered.⁠1⁠3⁠2

It did not explain the original ignition. Blanchette said the fire began in a marshy area, which he considered unusual, but crews could not determine the actual source. Finding heat underground answers where burning persisted; it does not answer what started it.⁠3

The follow-up also gives a more precise measure of the effort needed to assemble crews. “Staffing was an issue,” Blanchette told WMUR. “It took us about four hours to come up with 45 fighters to work the fire.” That is the time needed to gather that force—not a four-hour wait for the first firefighters to arrive.⁠2

The figure updates the earlier account of just shy of 40 firefighters, when Blanchette said the holiday and weekend had complicated mobilization. Several departments and state forestry personnel supplied people and equipment; Concord and Belmont firefighters covered Loudon’s other active calls. The evidence describes a difficult mobilization for this incident, not a measured department-wide vacancy rate or a finding about its budget.⁠1⁠3

Weather made the work harder. “It’s very dry,” Blanchette said in the follow-up. “There’s no moisture in the ground.” WMUR described response conditions that included winds of 20 to 30 mph. Its earlier account used 15 to 25 mph, without enough information to establish whether the two ranges covered the same observation period. They should not be read as a verified increase in wind speed—or as November 4 conditions.⁠2⁠3

The Monitor’s November 2 report placed the fire in a prolonged dry spell: most of New Hampshire had gone close to two weeks without significant rainfall, and precipitation was well below average over the preceding 14 months. Fallen leaves supplied dry fuel, while bare branches allowed more sunlight to reach and dry material on the ground.⁠1

The state’s wildfire-risk rating was high statewide in that November 2 account, which also forecast no precipitation for at least several days. Those are the rating and outlook accompanying the response, not refreshed weather information.⁠1

Blanchette’s prevention advice was direct: “Any campfires or brush fires you have while doing that fall cleanup, just make sure they’re completely cold.” He urged residents to add plenty of water, stir the remains and check cautiously for lingering heat. His warning is not a finding that an outdoor fire caused this incident.⁠2

Loudon’s experience makes the distinction concrete. No visible smoke was a useful observation, but not proof of complete extinction. The planned inspection found real burning that still needed attention. The remaining test is whether subsequent checks found the ground fully cold; the available follow-up has not yet established that.⁠2⁠3