Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Publishers
Posted
eo-meeting-summary-banner.png?w=1037

27 min read

Summary of the Third Annual AEOIP Workshop

Introduction

The Applied Earth Observations Innovation Partnership (AEOIP) was established in 2018 to facilitate knowledge coproduction and optimization of NASA Earth observations that can be used by natural resource managers for decision making. Through continued iteration and reflection, coproduction brings together stakeholders to share responsibilities and the completion of activities towards a common goal. AEOIP enables strong collaborations between NASA and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), along with growing participation from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other federal land management agencies.

AEOIP has held several previous meetings: the first was a Joint Applications Workshop on Satellite Data for Natural Resource Management held April 29–May 2, 2019, reported in an Earth Observer article, “Summary of the USFS–NASA Joint Applications Workshop on Satellite Data for Natural Resource Management.” The group met again virtually in 2020 during PitchFest. In 2022, a virtual workshop on Integrating Remote Sensing Data for Land Management Decision-Making took place March 23–24, 2022. In 2023, the AEOIP workshop took place April 25–27, 2023, with a hybrid format – the in-person participants met at the USFS Geospatial Technology and Applications Center (GTAC) in Salt Lake City, UT. The 2023 workshop focused on Addressing Land & Water Monitoring Needs Using Remote Sensing Data.

These workshops have been designed to build connections between participants across the research-to-applications spectrum with subject matter experts from a variety of federal agencies and other affiliations to continue to promote interagency collaboration within the Earth Observations (EO) applications field. This goal is accomplished using interactive panels and guided discussion sessions that highlight new tools and techniques, promote NASA EO data product uptake, and foster connections between data providers and data users.

2024 Workshop Overview

The most recent AEOIP workshop took place April 23–25, 2024, with a hybrid format. The in-person participants met in Ann Arbor, MI. The three-day event had a similar structure to its predecessors but with a wildland fire management theme. Altogether, 135 people participated in the workshop, with 77 attending in person and 58 virtually – see Photo 1.

AEOIP Photo 1
Photo 1. Participants at the 2024 AEOIP workshop.
Photo credit: AEOIP

Meeting Objectives

The workshop objectives were to:

  • meet AEOIP’s mission by providing a forum for building new relationships among Earth observations data providers, users, and stakeholders;
  • gather and/or codevelop “shovel-ready” ideas to better leverage Earth observations to meet science and management priorities of U.S. land and natural resource management agencies;
  • gather needs for and/or develop educational materials to support the use of existing EO training resources for fire management; and
  • gather ideas for the 2025 workshop and other AEOIP activities.

Breakout Sessions

A large segment of this workshop was dedicated to four concurrent topical breakout sessions – referred to in this report as Breakout Sessions A–D. The topics covered in each breakout session are listed below, along with the name(s) of those who facilitated discussion.

  • Breakout Session A: Fuels, Wildland Fire Emissions, Carbon & Climate Andy Hudak [USFS] and Edil Sepulveda Carlo [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Science Systems and Applications Inc. (SSAI)];
  • Breakout Session B: Prescribed Fire Planning & Management Nancy French [Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI)], Birgit Peterson [USGS], and Jessica Meisel [University of Idaho];
  • Breakout Session C: Fractional Vegetation Cover Products & Decision Making – Tim Assal and Jake Slyder [both U.S. Department of Interior, BLM], and Liz Hoy and Amanda Armstrong [both at GSFC]; and Alexis O’Callahan [University of Arkansas].
  • Breakout Session D: Post-fire Effects & Recovery: Assess, Predict, Remediate, and Monitor – Mary Ellen Miller [MTRI].

All of the breakout groups met on each day of the meeting. On the morning of the first day, the facilitators of each group gave brief “elevator pitches” about each breakout topic, and participants selected a topic for focus. After that, a block of time each day was dedicated to breakout activities and discussions. Participants were asked to focus on different aspects of the topic each day. In the afternoon of the first day, each group focused on identifying needs and challenges in the area being discussed – with a brief report-out at the end of the day. On the afternoon of the second day, the focus was on data availability and solutions – i.e., finding ways to overcome obstacles to making data more readily available to users – again with a brief report- out at the end of the day. On the morning of the third day, there were topical presentations. Each group worked to synthesize their three days of discussions and chose a representative to give a summary report during the closing plenary later that morning.

Workshop Summary

The remainder of this article presents highlights from each day of the workshop. This includes the most important presentations given during the meeting and those given during the breakout sessions. The report also includes highlights from training breakouts given on the second day of the workshop and a summary of a prescribed fire field trip, which took place the day before the workshop and visited two locations – see Optional “Field Trip” for AEOIP Workshop Participants to learn more.

Black Separator Line

Optional “Field Trip” for AEOIP Workshop Participants

On April 22, 2024, an optional field trip was offered that featured two sites demonstrating prescribed fire in Michigan. For the first stop on the trip, Kevin Butler [Washtenaw County—Natural Areas Preservation Program Stewardship Supervisor] gave a tour of a prescribed fire site in Park Lyndon, a county park in the northwest part of Washtenaw County, MI. The park is being restored to maintain native species using prescribed fire as invasive species control. The intent of these efforts is to restore oak meadows and preserve over 500 species of plants across fens, marshes, ponds, forest, and prairie lands.

On the second leg of the trip, Tina Stephens [City of Ann Arbor—Volunteer and Outreach Coordinator] led a tour of Furstenberg Nature Area, in the city of Ann Arbor, MI. She highlighted the importance of prescribed burning to achieve ecological benefits. The 0.15-km2 (38-acre) park contains wetlands, woodlands, prairie, and oak savanna. Since the mid-1990’s, Natural Area Preservation staff and volunteers have maintained those ecosystems through controlled burns and invasive shrub removal. The second tour stop included a small prescribed fire demonstration – see Photo 2.

AEOIP Photo 2
Photo 2. Ann Arbor park staff conduct a prescribed fire demonstration for workshop participants during the Furstenberg Nature Area tour portion of the AEOIP field trip.
Photo credit: Joseph Paki
Black Separator Line

DAY ONE

On the first day, Kira Sullivan-Wiley [Pew Institute] gave a plenary presentation, in which she discussed the value of coproduction, which in the context of AEOIP can be described as honoring the generative capacity of others as a means of optimizing the use of Earth by natural resource managers for decision making – see Photo 3. The benefits of this approach include cost reduction, tracking new ideas, and empowering marginalized voices.

The first block of breakout sessions also occurred during the afternoon of the first day, along with a short report-out. In light of the keynote discussion on coproduction, deliverables from this meeting’s breakout sessions can be seen as coproduced, new or improved conduits between NASA and land-managing entities.

After the keynote, representatives of government agencies (NASA, USFS, and BLM) presented their respective agency’s perspectives. The manager of a nearby state park in Michigan followed with a local perspective. A series of short presentations in the late afternoon featured various program highlights from NASA’s Earth Science Division, which are not detailed in this report – see workshop agenda for list of programs and speakers.

Notable Presentations

In addition to Kira Sullivan–Wiley’s keynote (described above), Christina Moats-Xavier [NASA Headquarters, Earth Action Program—Program Manager for Mission Engagement] shared NASA’s perspective, focusing on NASA’s Earth Science-to-Action strategy, which aims to increase the impact of scientific data. NASA’s Applied Science Program is now included under the broader umbrella of the new Earth Action program element of NASA’s Earth Science Division. This strategy has three pillars: 1) scaling existing efforts; 2) building bridges; and 3) focusing on the user. By collaborating with NASA, AEOIP can address real-world challenges to develop solutions that benefit society. Overall, the presentations on the first day highlighted the importance of collaborative, user-centered approaches and community engagement in addressing environmental challenges.

Everett Hinkley and Frenchy Morisette [both USFS] provided a practitioner’s perspective. They discussed USFS efforts to address climate adaptation, wildfire management, and incorporation of Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge. They also emphasized the application of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) for mapping and remote sensing tools.

Both Jake Slyder and Tim Assal described their respective government agency’s management of vast (mostly western) land areas and use of remote sensing for post-fire emergency stabilization and integration with the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program.

Kevin Butler offered more of a local perspective as he discussed land stewardship in Michigan. He emphasized the importance of community involvement and respecting natural ecosystems, especially fire-dependent ones, at the local level.

AEOIP Photo 3
Photo 3. Kira Sullivan-Wiley [Pew Institute] presents on co-production of knowledge during the first day’s plenary session.
Photo credit: AEOIP

DAY TWO

The presentations on the second day of the workshop highlighted the opportunities that Earth observing satellite data presents for natural resource management applications. Five presenters contributed to the panel discussion, titled “Communicating and Soliciting End User Needs: Past, Present and Future.” The second – longer – block of breakout sessions also occurred with a short report-out at the end of the day. A poster session ran concurrently with the report-outs. While this session is not described in this report, it afforded participants an opportunity to showcase their Earth observation related projects and/or interact with their peers. Highlights from the day follow below.

Notable Presentations

Pontus Olafsson [NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center] and Natasha Sadoff [NASA HQ—Satellite Needs Program Manager] presented on the Satellite Needs Working Group (SNWG), which provides a coordinated approach to identify and communicate federal satellite Earth observation needs and develop solutions based on Earth observation data. The speakers explained that as part of this effort, SNWG facilitates a biannual survey to all civilian federal agencies. SNWG provides federal agencies a path to coordinate Earth observing needs and a mechanism to develop actionable solutions for decision makers. Solutions cover thematic areas, including air quality, land use/land cover, and water resources. They noted that NASA is also making a greater effort to engage with agency partners in the co-development of new solutions that are useful, accessible, and actionable.

Alison York [University of Alaska Fairbanks] spoke about the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) and Fire Science Exchange Network (FSEN). JFSP’s main function is to maintain and grow a data repository and community based on fuels, fire behavior, fire ecology, and human dimensions. The goal is to help enable informed, actionable change by policy makers and land managers with the best available scientific support. York then discussed the FSEN, which acts as a mechanism to collate research needs from a collection of regional fire exchanges. The syntheses of data and data needs provides more effective understanding and management of fire.

Training Breakout Session Takeaways

On the second day, the four breakout sessions met, beginning with four short (25-minute) trainings. The speakers each gave half-hour presentations, which they repeated twice during the hour dedicated to the training breakouts, allowing participants to engage in two of the training breakouts if desired.

Pete Robichaud [USFS] discussed training opportunities for modeling post-fire hydrological response using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). Soil burn severity is first assessed with remote sensing and then field verified. A subsequent soil burn severity map can be created to give details on physical features, e.g., ash color, ash depth, fine roots, soil structure, water repellency, and ground cover. This resource can be used to create a risk assessment table of probability and consequence parameters. Following the risk assessment, the Forest Service Water WEPP suite of tools can be used to model the landscape. The WEPP suite includes both hillslope and watershed modeling tools. The final step in the Burned Area for Emergency Response (BAER) program is to implement and monitor solutions.

Rupesh Shretha [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC)] discussed the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) DAACs, which are collocated with centers of science discipline expertise and archive and distribute NASA Earth Science data products. The ORNL DAAC archives and distributes terrestrial ecology data, particularly data from field and airborne campaigns. The Terrestrial Ecology Subsetting & Visualization Services (TESViS) – formerly MODIS–VIIRS subsets tool – provide subsets of satellite data in easy-to-use formats that are particularly valuable for site-based field research. The Ecological Spectral Information System (ECOSIS) integrates spectral data with measurements of vegetation functional traits (i.e., species, foliar chemistry). ECOSIS allows users to submit spectral data and return a citable DOIs. ECOSIS also provides users application programming interface (API)-based methods to retrieve thousands of field spectra.

Jake Slyder discussed the use of remote sensing for efficient resource management over vast tracts of land with limited human and financial resources. He explained that while the vast collection of remotely sensed data makes it challenging to effectively exploit, Google Earth Engine (GEE) has become an important tool in leveraging remotely sensed information to address BLM management questions. The Change and Disturbance Event Detection Tool (CDEDT), a GEE-based application, allows users to detect and develop vector geospatial products to identify changes and disturbances to surface cover between two dates of observations [10 m (~33 ft) resolution] from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Copernicus Sentinel-2 mission. Slyder said that the Version 2 (V2) beta product includes the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) and ESA Copernicus Sentinel-1 SAR Imagery. CDEDT supports a range of BLM monitoring applications, including disaster events, energy development, forest disturbances, and seasonal patterns and processes (e.g., vegetation, water cover). The CDEDT tool is publicly available and does not require any license or special software.

DAY THREE

The third day was dedicated to the final block of the breakout sessions and a final plenary, where a representative from each breakout group gave five to seven minute summaries of their discussions throughout the meeting. The overview was followed by a meeting wrap-up and adjournment. The sections below summarize the topical presentations given on day three and encapsulate the three days of discussions.

Breakout Session A: Focus on Carbon

The carbon breakout aimed to inform participants about carbon-related EO initiatives and spark discussion about user needs.

Aaron Piña [USFS] spoke about the Forest Service’s broad base of applied research that spans wildfire weather and behavior to dynamics of the smoke produced – see Photo 2. Recent assessments have been made for wildland fire, controlled burn smoke, and remote air monitors. Piña spoke about Bluesky Playground, a community-driven tool aimed at providing the public with information on fuels and smoke modeling. These data have been used to identify important indicators for fires and fuels (e.g., vertical plume structure).

Piña then discussed a fusion Fire Radiative Power (FRP) data product [MOD19A2] that combines data from four sources – the Visible and Infrared Scanner (VIRS) on the former Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP), the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on the Terra and Aqua platforms, and the Multi-Angle Implementation of Atmospheric Correction (MAIAC) aerosol product.

A group discussion followed Piña’s presentation, during which several participants expressed concerns about the continuity of VIIRS and the other observations that are used in the fusion FRP product. Another topic of discussion was the potential of remotely sensed data to improve the characterization of duff (decaying vegetation) in satellite data products. NASA’s Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution (TEMPO) mission data have also been used to characterize the vertical structure of smoke plumes; however, these efforts have thus far been limited by personnel knowledge gaps as well as raw data formats.

Chris Woodall [USFS] discussed the growing emphasis on carbon metrics for a variety of sectors and applications. The USFS wants to work in tandem with other entities, especially federal organizations, to maximize efforts and workstream. USFS is seen as the in-situ carbon observer, while NASA is the remote sensor, and USGS is the lateral flux assessor. The coproduction of knowledge and data regarding carbon among these agencies is an iterative process. The USFS investment in improved Measurement, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MMRV) of greenhouse gas (GHG), for example, can expand soil and land-use inventories to improve alignment with remote-sensing platforms. Challenges to implementing this cooperative approach to collecting carbon metrics include creating a workflow that incorporates a wealth of existing resources and accruing data from multiple federal agencies concerned with ecosystem carbon management to create scalable GHG knowledge. The coproduction, iteration, and dissemination of knowledge should be a major focus with all interested parties – not just the aforementioned federal agencies.

Sydney Neugebauer [NASA’s Langley Research Center] and Melanie Follette-Cook [GSFC] discussed NASA’s capacity building initiatives, which are aimed at developing and strengthening an organization or community’s skills, abilities, processes, and resources to enable them to survive, adapt, and thrive in a fast changing world. The DEVELOP, Indigenous Peoples Initiative, and SERVIR programs (all under the Earth Action program element) work towards capacity building through co-development projects, collaborative training, and data availability. The NASA Applied Remote Sensing Training (ARSET) program has offered over 100,000 training sessions since it was created in 2009 – primarily to international participants. The trainings are free and virtual for individuals interested in using remotely sensed data in a diverse suite of environmental applications. All content is archived. NASA’s Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach (CASA), which has contributed to global carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration datasets for the past 30-years, will be upgraded to incorporate CO2 fluxes. The NASA cooperative interagency U.S. Greenhouse Gas Center is also looking for feedback on its beta portal.

The group discussions that followed identified and addressed AEOIP needs and questions (e.g., obtaining carbon and smoke emission estimates from prescribed wildfires and ensuring global satellite fire record continuity). Participants also identified the need for near real-time active fire and burned area mapping at medium scale and for continuity of these measurements. The group is interested in engaging federal agency end users to obtain feedback on their capacity to facilitate and elucidate capacity needs. Prominent challenges going forward include preparing for the end of the Terra and Aqua missions, which will include the decommissioning of MODIS, and ensuring the continuity of VIIRS, which is being used to allow for continuity of MODIS data products. One of the greatest unknowns identified was being able to determine wildfire fuel conditions in near-real time, and the ability to constrain estimates of fuel attributes to a focused fire event.

Andy Hudak discussed the diverse coalition of practitioners who manage more than just carbon (e.g., forest health, harvest, fires). Of the diverse group of stakeholders, Indigenous Tribes are at the cutting edge using lidar for carbon assessment. While Forest Inventory and Analysis plots are used for bias correction, they do not provide synoptic coverage for accurate carbon assessments. Lidar and other passive remote sensing satellite data provide a way to address this need. Tree lists are also highly valuable to carbon and forest managers for diverse applications. Application-specific metrics (e.g., timber volume, basal area, and density) can be weighted based on stakeholder priorities, as quantified from stakeholder surveys, to optimize data products.

Sarah Lewis [USFS] explained the needs and applications of Earth observations in a post-fire environment. The information needs to be available quickly, integrated into effective decision-making tools, and delivered in a functional product. Information is needed on water, soils, vegetation recovery, and habitat – all major metrics of interest in a data product. Areas of concern during post-fire management for water quality and erosion control include ash and soil–water transport. In addition, major concerns exist for timely data acquisition and processing, along with the fate and transport mapping of post-fire ash. Data products would benefit from end-user input to optimize relevance and accessibility of decision ready maps, models, and trusted recommendations.

The group identified the need for heavy carbon fuels and duff estimates for ecological modeling, which is critical to achieving a better understanding of smoke and carbon emissions. The heavy carbon fuel and duff estimates may be achieved through multiple means but may be most accessible currently through a new layer in the LANDFIRE database. They also identified the need for more post-fire data for model training and integration of active remote sensing data. Finally, the group identified the need for more regulation and research on prescribed fire emissions and disturbance.

Breakout Session B: Prescribed Fire

This breakout session focused on prescribed fires. Some of the major objectives and needs that emerged from this session were improved access to data, cultivating deeper public trust in the practice, creating networks of future coproduction, and assessing end-user needs, burn maps, and securing funding. The discussions emphasized knowledge and awareness gaps as a major impediment to prescribed fire implementation. Uniform capacity building is an ideal approach to engage stakeholders at a reference level appropriate to their background to optimize equity and efficacy.

Another issue that came up during discussion is that land management professionals do not have the time or resources to stay current with data sources and analysis techniques. The participants suggested the creation of a “Fire Science Library” as an iterative data tool to organize and present fire knowledge in an actionable and streamlined manner for public land managers. The interface would allow practitioners to filter unique categories (e.g., role, scope, region, ecosystem type, weather, agency affiliation) to provide the ability to search, modify, and maintain fire science knowledge as it evolves. This interface would also provide provenance through references to papers, justification for methods, and case studies. The library would guide and streamline data collection, analyses, and interpretation workflows that are needed for holistic prescribed fire planning and monitoring based on tangible needs from fire professionals.

The virtual library tool would provide a user with a fire-science knowledge graph, which is an organized representation of real-world entities and their relationships that could quickly connect fire-related management with current research questions concerning data products, processing methods, and data sources along with references and case studies. Information provided in the knowledge graph would need to be context specific but not overly prescriptive to avoid constraining users to a rigid workflow that is more common in basic data portals. Knowledge graphs are associated with semantic web technology that forms a modern version of a database. The tool establishes relationships between entities that promote new relationship discovery, search, and modification. It also provides a foundation on which other applications can be built, such as prescribed fires in the southeast and incorporating drone data. Focusing on prescribed fire may help to bound the initial product development but leave the door open for eventual expansion for wildfire.

The group identified objectives moving forward, including the need to finalize the main set of prescribed fire management questions (e.g., planning, implementation, pre/post monitoring), establish user personas based on known representatives and gaps, engage the Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP), identify cluster members (e.g., subject matter experts from local and federal agencies, private industry, and academia/research), and investigate additional funding sources. (Clusters are agile working groups within ESIP formed to focus on specific topics.)

Breakout Session C: Fractional Vegetation Cover

This breakout session focused on fractional vegetation cover (FVC) – see Photo 4. The presenters introduced three large FVC assessment efforts, and the participants contributed to a Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of FVC products intended to improve the use of this data by decision makers – see Table.

AEOIP Photo 4
Photo 4. [left to right] Amanda Armstrong, Elizabeth Hoy [both at Goddard Space Flight Center], and Timothy Assal [Bureau of Land Management] collaborating during the Fractional Vegetation Cover Breakout.
Photo credit: AEOIP

Tim Assal discussed the BLM’s Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) strategy. He explained that AIM has nearly 60,000 monitoring locations across the terrestrial uplands, aquatic systems, and riparian and wetland habitat of the U.S., and the data collected are being used for monitoring and restoration activities. Assai added that integration of remote sensing data with field plot data enables the generation of continuous datasets (e.g., FVC that can relate field plot-level indicators to those based on remote-sensing). He also reported that FVC data are currently being used to address numerous management decisions.

Sarah McCord [USDA] discussed V3 of the Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP). McCord explained that V3 uses vegetation cover and rangeland production data to monitor these parameters. The model also uses species composition data. She explained that there are approximately 85,000 training/validation locations across the U.S. that have been incorporated into the modeling process. She said that enhancements to future versions of RAP are expected as data from new satellite instruments, field plots, and deep learning (i.e., application of AI/ML techniques) are all incorporated into the model. McCord chairs a working group that is actively investigating sources of error and uncertainty within individual and across different FVC products.

Matt Rigge [USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center] discussed V3 of the Rangeland Condition Monitoring Assessment and Projection (RCMAP), which will provide current and future condition using Landsat time series. Data available includes cover maps and potential cover. The platform uses various training data in addition to AIM plot data. In the future RCMAP plans to incorporate data from synthetic NASA-Indian Space Research Organization Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), from NASA’s Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source (EMIT) mission, and from convolution neural network-based (CNN) algorithms.

Bo Zhou [University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)] discussed V2 of the Landscape Cover Analysis and Reporting Tool (LandCART). V3 will be different and coming in the future. He explained that the BLM uses V3 to make legally defensible decisions. He then discussed the training data, which come mostly from AIM. The training dataset includes 71 Level-4 (L4) Ecoregions, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with at least 100 observations. Zhou noted that these training data are used to define spatial extent, the temporal extent is defined by available satellite imagery, and uncertainty estimates are based on CNN and random forest (RF) machine-learning algorithms.

Eric Jensen [Desert Research Institute] discussed how ClimateEngine.org uses cloud-based tools, such as GEE, to access, visualize, and share Earth observation datasets to overcome computational limitations of big data in a real-time environment. It encompasses over 85 datasets, including RAP and RCMAP, and the group is working to add LandCART. Two core functionalities of the ClimateEngine app are producing maps and making graphs. Jensen provided a brief demonstration of the app using a juniper removal project in sage grouse habitat in southern Idaho.

Strengths
• Tools available for accessing and processing data are user-friendly and widely accessible, making it easy to compile, use, and display data for users of all expertise levels across a range of management activities.
• Tools provide a comprehensive view of an area, offering both current and retrospective insights that are highly regarded by the restoration community.
• Tool format supports integration of new datasets, ensuring inclusivity and consistency over time and space.  
Weaknesses
• Training data exhibits spatial and temporal biases.
• Training data is biased towards federal data, lacking global representation.
• Sensors have limitations for both temporal and spatial accuracy.  
Opportunities
• Managers can use these tools to make informed decisions and evaluate the effectiveness of their treatments.
• Additional training (e.g., training in how to process new data types, such as hyperspectral data) could institutionalize remote sensing and reach more end users.
• Future expansion of AI/ML techniques and cloud-based services could reduce error, enhance data quality, and increase user reach.  
Threats
• Stability of funding could threaten continuity of measurements.
• Falling into a “one size fits all” mentality could stifle innovation.
• Variation in land management organizations’ willingness to update data and lack of cohesion could prevent obtaining full potential of FVC.
• Transition from research to operations could hinder collaboration and tool development and weaken the community of practice.
• Poor performance, misuse of information, and data sovereignty could diminish the community’s trust in the tools.
• Rapid technological advancements could displace smaller businesses.  
Table. Results of a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of the current state of Fractional Vegetation Cover (FVC) data analysis tools and techniques.

Breakout Session D: Post-fire Effects and Recovery

This session focused on assessing, predicting, remediating, and monitoring areas in the aftermath of fires. The focus was on “shovel-ready” ideas, such as improving operational soil burn severity maps to connect post-fire ground conditions and soil properties. The participants highlighted the need to leverage information (e.g., active fire thermal data) to better detect changes in post-fire cover and soil properties. Such information would be beneficial to USFS’s Burned Area for Emergency Response (BAER) program as well as to researchers, data providers, decision makers, and community leaders. The group discussed steps that would aid in this collaboration (e.g., incorporating thermal imagery into mapping soil burn severity, developing and validating products, getting first-look data to field teams, monitoring threats by conducting rapid burn severity assessment before official soil burn severity maps are made available, and sharing outputs quickly with decision makers).

The breakout participants also noted the challenge of ash load mapping, which they suggested might be constrained by using information on pre-fire fuels (e.g., biomass, understory, and canopy vegetation) to constrain potential ash production. Derived information products [e.g., Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Leaf Area Index (LAI), LANDFIRE fuels layers, and RAP] may improve this process. The group noted the limitations of the VIIRS instrument for mapping fire duration and soil heating. The group proposed adding supplemental data through the use of National Infrared Operations (NIROPS) raw infrared imagery – see Figure 1.

Fire tools currently available – and under consideration for improving maps – include VIIRS active fire data through NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS), fire event tracking through NASA’s Earth Information System Fire Event Data Suite (FEDS), the burn severity prediction model at MTRI, and Rapid Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio Mapping at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The group identified VIIRS L1 image capture to detect smoldering fires as a potential improvement in wildfire characterization. The group also suggested more frequent observations of moderate resolution satellites, GOES Integration [0.5–2 km (0.3–1.2 mi) spatial resolution], and comprehensive field data. They identified possible ways to improve post-fire soil burn severity maps (e.g., information on pre-fire fuels, soil characteristics, and thermal properties, such as fire heating, residence time, spread rate), optical characteristic (e.g., vegetation mortality, ash production), and lidar canopy metrics.

Presently, burn severity is assessed using a simple spectral index derived from remote sensing data, driven by necessity, data access, and computing power. The group presented the need to break this single number into ecologically meaningful components for better post-fire assessment and remediation. Improvements could involve incorporating additional information (e.g., peak soil temperature, heat residence time, and fuel moisture). Coupling atmospheric fire behavior models could address temporal gaps, necessitating high-spatial and temporal resolution thermal data sets.

The participants agreed that future strategies should include monitoring warmer areas and smoldering zones instead of just flaming fronts, as well as exploring temperature differences across burn severities. Additionally, post-fire assessments would benefit from using other spectral bands and post-fire Ecosystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment on Space Station (ECOSTRESS) products. They also added that access to more field information is crucial for scientific post-fire observations. Efforts are underway to make the SBS S123 survey system a national standard, though surveys currently reside with local units that have good record-keeping practices.

AEOIP Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical [left and right] and thermal [right, overlay] images of participants at the 2024 AEOIP workshop obtained by an unpiloted aerial vehicle (UAV).
Image credit: Colin Brooks

Conclusion

The 2024 AEOIP workshop addressed a wide range of geospatial data tool and training needs and forums. The meeting centered on coproduction of knowledge and community-of-practice building as key needs for the geospatial data topics. Participants identified capacity building – through awareness, accessibility, and utility of data and tools – as the top priority for processing and technological advancement initiatives.

The breakout session topics selected (e.g., carbon concentrations, wildfires, prescribed fires, and landscape dynamics) were chosen to promote dialogue between data users and scientists, leading to plans for action and change in data and tool utility in four areas of interest for land managers. Following the meeting, the organizers submitted a spreadsheet detailing the data and tool needs identified during the breakouts to the Earth Action Program. The SNWG has also been made aware of the most compelling needs that participants identified. The AEOIP believes that by bridging two groups – data users and research and development – it will be possible to bolster user provenance and efficacy of NASA resources moving forward.

Severin Scott
Washington State University
severin.scott@wsu.edu

Alan B. Ward
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Global Science and Technology (GST)
alan.b.ward@nasa.gov

Alexis O’Callahan
University of Arkansas
aocallah@uark.edu

Share

Details

Last Updated
Jan 03, 2025

Related Terms

View the full article

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By NASA
      Credit: NASA The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), an advisory committee that reports to NASA and Congress, issued its 2024 annual report Thursday examining the agency’s safety performance, accomplishments, and challenges during the past year.
      The report highlights 2024 activities and observations on NASA’s work, including:
      strategic vision and agency governance Moon to Mars management future of U.S. presence in low Earth orbit health and medical risks in human space exploration “Over the past year, NASA has continued to make meaningful progress toward meeting the intent of the broad-ranging recommendations the panel has made over the last several years,” said retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Susan J. Helms, chair of ASAP. “We believe that the agency’s careful attention to vision, strategy, governance, and program management is vital to the safe execution of NASA’s complex and critical national mission.”
      This year’s report reflects the panel’s continued focus on NASA’s strategies for risk management and safety culture in an environment of growing space commercialization. Specifically, the panel cites its 2021 recommendations for NASA on preparing for future challenges in a changing landscape, including the need to evaluate NASA’s approach to safety and technical risk and to evolve its role, responsibilities, and relationships with private sector and international partners.
      Overall, the panel finds NASA is continuing to make progress with respect to the agency’s strategic vision, approach to governance, and integrated program management. The NASA 2040 new agencywide initiative is working to operationalize the agency’s vision and strategic objectives across headquarters and centers. With the establishment of NASA’s Moon to Mars Program Office in 2023, it finds NASA has implemented safety and risk management as a key focus for NASA’s Artemis campaign.
      The 2024 report provides details on the concrete actions the agency should take to fulfill its previous recommendations and spotlights its recommendations for the agency moving ahead. It addresses safety assessments for Moon to Mars and current International Space Station operations, as well as risk-related issues surrounding NASA’s planned transition to commercial low Earth orbit destinations.
      It covers relevant areas of human health and medicine in space and the impact of budget constraints and uncertainty on safety.
      The annual report is based on the panel’s 2024 fact-finding and quarterly public meetings; direct observations of NASA operations and decision-making; discussions with NASA management, employees, and contractors; and the panel members’ experiences.
      Congress established the panel in 1968 to provide advice and make recommendations to the NASA administrator on safety matters after the 1967 Apollo 1 fire claimed the lives of three American astronauts.
      To learn more about the ASAP, and view annual reports, visit:
      https://www.nasa.gov/asap
      -end-
      Jennifer Dooren / Elizabeth Shaw
      Headquarters, Washington
      202-358-1600
      jennifer.m.dooren@nasa.gov / elizabeth.a.shaw@nasa.gov
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Feb 06, 2025 EditorJessica TaveauLocationNASA Headquarters Related Terms
      Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel View the full article
    • By NASA
      In 2023, NASA Langley’s workforce brought imagination to reality with innovative technological development and a continued commitment to tackling some of the tough challenges that both NASA and the nation face.

      NASA At NASA, we aspire to know more, dig deeper, climb higher and along the way we are asking, ‘What if?’,” said NASA Langley Center Director Clayton P. Turner in an introductory message to Langley’s 2023 Annual Report. “Our inquisitive nature propels us on our mission to reach for new heights and reveal the unknown for the benefit of humankind.”

      All year, the Langley workforce pondered and planned for a future alongside self-flying drones, aircraft with reduced emissions, air travel that benefits from greater fuel efficiency and space exploration assisted by inflatable heat shields that could give us the ability to carry greater payloads than ever before.

      “We invite you to explore all that NASA’s Langley Research Center has to offer — our amazing people, unique capabilities, and legacy of success,” Turner said in his introduction.
      Use this link to explore the 2023 Annual Report for NASA’s Langley Research Center.
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      NASA At NASA’s Langley Research Center, we are proud of our world-renowned role in innovating and improving the way we fly, explore, and understand our universe.” said NASA Langley leadership in an introductory message to Langley’s 2024 Annual Report. “The passion, dedication, and expertise of our workforce is bringing solutions to the nation’s toughest challenges in Aeronautics, Space Exploration, and Earth Science research.”

      Featured achievements include work on NASA’s X-59 supersonic experimental aircraft, the largest air quality campaign to ever collaborate with countries across Asia and an autonomous robotic manipulation system that will one day provide NASA with a lunar moving crew.
      Use this link to explore the 2024 Annual Report for NASA’s Langley Research Center.

      View the full article
    • By NASA
      The 2024 Annual Highlights of Results from the International Space Station is coming soon. This new edition contains updated bibliometric analyses, a list of all the publications documented in fiscal year 2024, and synopses of the most recent and recognized scientific findings from investigations conducted on the space station. These investigations are sponsored by NASA and all international partners – CSA (Canadian Space Agency), ESA (European Space Agency), JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency), and the State Space Corporation Roscosmos (Roscosmos) – for the advancement of science, technology, and education.
      Dr. Dmitry Oleynikov remotely operates a surgical robot aboard the Space Station using controls at the Virtual Incision offices in Lincoln, Nebraska. Robotic Surgery Tech Demo tests techniques for performing a simulated surgical procedure in microgravity using a miniature surgical robot that can be remotely controlled from Earth. Credits: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Between Oct. 1, 2023, and Sept. 30, 2024, more than 350 publications were reported. With approximately 40% of the research produced in collaboration between more than two countries and almost 80% of the high-impact studies published in the past seven years, station has continued to generate compelling and influential science above national and global standards since 2010.
      The results achieved from station research provide insights that advance the commercialization of space and benefit humankind.
      Some of the findings presented in this edition include:
      Improved machine learning algorithms to detect space debris (Italian Space Agency) Visuospatial processing before and after spaceflight (CSA) Metabolic changes during fasting intervals in astronauts (ESA) Vapor bubble production for the improvement of thermal systems (NASA) The survival of microorganisms in space (Roscosmos) Immobilization of particles for the development of optical materials (JAXA) The content in the Annual Highlights of Results from the International Space Station has been reviewed and approved by the International Space Station Program Science Forum, a team of scientists and administrators representing NASA and international partners that are dedicated to planning, improving, and communicating the research operated on the space station.
      For the Annual Highlights of Results 2023, click here.
      Keep Exploring Discover More Topics
      Space Station Research Results
      Space Station Research and Technology
      ISS National Laboratory
      Opportunities and Information for Researchers
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      Following the historic year of 1969 that saw two successful Moon landings, 1970 opened on a more sober note. Ever-tightening federal budgets forced NASA to rescope its future lunar landing plans. The need for a Saturn V to launch an experimental space station in 1972 forced the cancellation of the final Moon landing mission and an overall stretching out of the Moon landing flights. Apollo 13 slipped to April, but the crew of James Lovell, Thomas “Ken” Mattingly, and Fred W. Haise and their backups John Young, John “Jack” Swigert, and Charles Duke continued intensive training for the landing at Fra Mauro. Training included practicing their surface excursions and water egress, along with time in spacecraft simulators. The three stages of the Apollo 14 Saturn V arrived at the launch site and workers began the stacking process for that mission now planned for October 1970. Scientists met in Houston to review the preliminary findings from their studies of the lunar samples returned by Apollo 11. 
      Apollo Program Changes 
      Apollo Moon landing plans in early 1970, with blue indicating completed landings, green planned landings at the time, and red canceled landings. Illustration of the Apollo Applications Program, later renamed Skylab, experimental space station then planned for 1972. On Jan. 4, 1970, NASA Deputy Administrator George Low announced the cancellation of Apollo 20, the final planned Apollo Moon landing mission. The agency needed the Saturn V rocket that would have launched Apollo 20 to launch the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) experimental space station, renamed Skylab in February 1970. Since previous NASA Administrator James Webb had precluded the building of any additional Saturn V rockets in 1968, this proved the only viable yet difficult solution.  
      In other program changes, on Jan. 13 NASA Administrator Thomas Paine addressed how NASA planned to deal with ongoing budgetary challenges. Lunar landing missions would now occur every six months instead of every four, and with the slip of Apollo 13 to April, Apollo 14 would now fly in October instead of July. Apollo 15 and 16 would fly in 1971, then AAP would launch in 1972, and three successive crews would spend, 28, 56, and 56 days aboard the station. Lunar landing missions would resume in 1973, with Apollo 17, 18, and 19 closing out the program by the following year. 
      Top NASA managers in the Mission Control Center, including Sigurd “Sig” Sjoberg, third from left, Christopher Kraft, sitting in white shirt, and Dale Myers, third from right. Wernher von Braun in his office at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In addition to programmatic changes, several key management changes took place at NASA in January 1970. On Nov. 26, 1969, Christopher Kraft , the director of flight operations at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), now NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, assumed the position of MSC deputy director. On Dec. 28, MSC Director Robert Gilruth named Sigurd “Sig” Sjoberg, deputy director of flight operations since 1963, to succeed Kraft. At NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George Mueller resigned his position effective Dec. 10, 1969. To replace Mueller, on Jan. 8, NASA Administrator Paine named Dale Myers, vice president and general manager of the space shuttle program at North American Rockwell Corporation. On Jan. 27, Paine announced that Wernher von Braun, designer of the Saturn family of rockets and director of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, since its establishment in 1960, would move to NASA Headquarters and assume the position of deputy associate administrator for planning. 
      Apollo 11 Lunar Science Symposium 
      Sign welcoming scientists to the Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference. Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin addresses a reception at the First Lunar Science Conference. Between Jan. 5 and 8, 1970, several hundred scientists, including all 142 U.S. and international principal investigators provided with Apollo 11 samples, gathered in downtown Houston’s Albert Thomas Exhibit and Convention Center for the Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference. During the conference, the scientists discussed the chemistry, mineralogy, and petrology of the lunar samples, the search for carbon compounds and any evidence of organic material, the results of dating of the samples, and the results returned by the Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package (EASEP). Senior NASA managers including Administrator Paine, Deputy Administrator Low, and Apollo Program Director Rocco Petrone attended the conference, and Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin gave a keynote speech at a dinner reception. The prestigious journal Science dedicated its Jan. 30, 1970, edition to the papers presented at the conference, dubbing it “The Moon Issue”. The Lunar Science Conference evolved into an annual event, renamed the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in 1978, and continues to attract scientists from around the world to discuss the latest developments in lunar and planetary exploration. 
      Apollo 12 
      Apollo 12 astronaut Richard Gordon riding in one of the Grand Marshal cars in the Rose Parade in Pasadena, California. Actress June Lockhart, left, interviews Apollo 12 astronauts Charles “Pete” Conrad, Gordon, and Alan Bean during the Rose Parade.courtesy emmyonline.com Apollo 12 astronauts and their wives visiting former President and Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson at the LBJ Ranch in Texas. On New Year’s Day 1970, Apollo 12 astronauts Charles “Pete” Conrad, Richard Gordon, and Alan Bean led the 81st annual Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena, California, as Grand Marshals. Actress June Lockhart, an avid space enthusiast, interviewed them during the TV broadcast of the event. As President Richard Nixon had earlier requested, Conrad, Gordon, and Bean and their wives paid a visit to former President Lyndon B. Johnson and First Lady Lady Bird Johnson at their ranch near Fredericksburg, Texas, on Jan. 14, 1970. The astronauts described their mission to the former President and Mrs. Johnson.  
      The Apollo 12 Command Module Yankee Clipper arrives at the North American Rockwell (NAR) facility in Downey, California. Yankee Clipper at NAR in Downey. A technician examines the Surveyor 3 camera returned by the Apollo 12 astronauts. Managers released the Apollo 12 Command Module (CM) Yankee Clipper from quarantine and shipped it back to its manufacturer, the North American Rockwell plant in Downey, California, on Jan. 12. Engineers there completed a thorough inspection of the spacecraft and eventually prepared it for public display. NASA transferred Yankee Clipper to the Smithsonian Institution in 1973, and today the capsule resides at the Virginia Air & Space Center in Hampton, Virginia. NASA also released from quarantine the lunar samples and the parts of the Surveyor 3 spacecraft returned by the Apollo 12 astronauts. The scientists received their allocated samples in mid-February, while after initial examination in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) the Surveyor parts arrived at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, for detailed analysis. 
      Apollo 13 
      As the first step in the programmatic rescheduling of all Moon landings, on Jan. 7, NASA announced the delay of the Apollo 13 launch from March 12 to April 11. The Saturn V rocket topped with the Apollo spacecraft had rolled out the previous December to Launch Pad 39A where workers began tests on the vehicle. The prime crew of Lovell, Mattingly, and Haise, and their backups Young, Swigert, and Duke, continued to train for the 10-day mission to land in the Fra Mauro region of the Moon.  

      During water recovery exercises, Apollo 13 astronauts (in white flight suits) Thomas “Ken” Mattingly, left, Fred Haise, and James Lovell in the life raft after emerging from the boilerplate Apollo capsule. Apollo 13 astronaut Lovell suits up for a spacewalk training session. Apollo 13 astronaut Haise during a spacewalk simulation. Apollo 13 prime crew members Lovell, Mattingly, and Haise completed their water egress training in the Gulf of Mexico near the coast of Galveston, Texas, on Jan. 24. With support from the Motorized Vessel Retriever, the three astronauts entered a boilerplate Apollo CM. Sailors lowered the capsule into the water, first in the Stable 2 or apex down position. Three self-inflating balloons righted the spacecraft into the Stable 1 apex up position within a few minutes. With assistance from the recovery team, Lovell, Mattingly, and Haise exited the spacecraft onto a life raft. A helicopter lifted them out of the life rafts using Billy Pugh nets and returned them to Retriever. Later that day, the astronauts returned to the MSC to examine Moon rocks in the LRL that the Apollo 12 astronauts had returned the previous November. 
      During their 33.5 hours on the Moon’s surface, Lovell and Haise planned to conduct two four-hour spacewalks to set up the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP), a suite of five investigations designed to collect data about the lunar environment after the astronauts’ departure, and to conduct geologic explorations of the landing site. Mattingly planned to remain in the Command and Service Module (CSM), conducting geologic observations from lunar orbit including photographing potential future landing sites. Lovell and Haise conducted several simulations of the spacewalk timelines, including setting up the ALSEP equipment, practicing taking core samples, and photographing their activities for documentation purposes. They and their backups conducted practice sessions with the partial gravity simulator, also known as POGO, an arrangement of harnesses and servos that simulated walking in the lunar one-sixth gravity. Lovell and Young completed several flights in the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV) that simulated the flying characteristics of the Lunar Module (LM) for the final several hundred feet of the descent to the surface. 

      A closed Apollo 13 rock box. An open rock box, partially outfitted with core sample tubes and sample container dispenser. A technician holds the American flag that flew aboard Apollo 13. In the LRL, technicians prepared the Apollo Lunar Sample Return Containers (ALSRC), or rock boxes, for Apollo 13. Like all missions, Apollo 13 carried two ALSRCs, with each box and lid manufactured from a single block of aluminum. Workers placed sample containers and bags and two 2-cm core sample tubes inside the two ALSRCs. Once loaded, technicians sealed the boxes under vacuum conditions so that they would not contain pressure greater than lunar ambient conditions. Engineers at MSC prepared the American flag that Lovell and Haise planned to plant on the Moon for stowage on the LM’s forward landing strut. 
      Apollo 14 
      Workers lower the Apollo 14 Lunar Module (LM) ascent stage onto the Command Module (CM) in a preflight docking test. Workers prepare the Apollo 14 LM descent stage for mating with the ascent stage. Workers prepare the Apollo 14 LM ascent stage for mating with the descent stage. As part of the rescheduling of Moon missions, NASA delayed the launch of the next flight, Apollo 14, from July to October 1970. The CSM and the LM had arrived at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida late in 1969 and technicians conducted tests on the vehicles in the Manned Spacecraft Operations Building (MSOB). On Jan. 12, workers lowered the ascent stage of the LM onto the CSM to perform a docking test – the next time the two vehicles docked they would be on the way to the Moon and the test verified their compatibility. Workers mated the two stages of the LM on Jan. 20. 
      The first stage of Apollo 14’s Saturn V inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. The second stage of Apollo 14’s Saturn V arrives at the VAB. The third stage of Apollo 14’s Saturn V arrives at KSC. The three stages of the Apollo 14 Saturn V arrived in KSC’s cavernous Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) in mid-January and while workers stacked the first stage on its Mobile Launch Platform on Jan. 14, they delayed stacking the remainder of the rocket stages until May 1970. That decision proved fortunate, since engineers needed to modify the second stage engines following the pogo oscillations experienced during the Apollo 13 launch. 

      Apollo 14 backup Commander Eugene Cernan prepares for a vacuum chamber test in the Space Environment Simulation Lab (SESL). Apollo 14 backup crew member Joe Engle during a vacuum chamber test in the SESL. Apollo 14 astronauts Alan Shepard, Stuart Roosa, and Edgar Mitchell and their backups Eugene Cernan, Ronald Evans, and Joe Engle continued training for their mission. In addition to working in spacecraft simulators, Shepard, Mitchell, Cernan, and Engle conducted suited vacuum chamber runs in MSC’s Space Environmental Simulation Laboratory (SESL) and completed their first familiarization with deploying their suite of ALSEP investigations.  
      NASA engineer William Creasy, kneeling in sport coat, and the technical team that built the Modular Equipment Transporter (MET), demonstrate the prototype to Roundup editor Sally LaMere. Apollo 14 support astronaut William Pogue tests the MET during parabolic flight. The Apollo 14 astronauts made the first use of the Modular Equipment Transporter (MET), a golf-cart like wheeled conveyance to transport their tools and lunar samples. A team led by project design engineer William Creasy developed the MET based on recommendations from the first two Moon landing crews on how to improve efficiency on the lunar surface. Creasy and his team demonstrated the MET to Sally LaMere, editor of The Roundup, MSC’s employee newsletter. Three support astronauts, William Pogue, Anthony “Tony” England, and Gordon Fullerton tested the MET prototype in simulated one-sixth lunar gravity during parabolic aircraft flights.   
      To be continued … 
      News from around the world in January 1970: 
      January 1 – President Richard Nixon signs the National Environmental Protection Act into law. 
      January 4 – The Beatles hold their final recording session at Abbey Road Studios in London. 
      January 5 – Daytime soap opera All My Children premieres. 
      January 11 – The Kansas City Chiefs beat the Minnesota Vikings 23-7 in Super Bowl IV, played in Tulane Stadium in New Orleans. 
      January 22 – Pan American Airlines flies the first scheduled commercial Boeing-747 flight from New York to London. 
      January 14 – Diana Ross and the Supremes perform their final concert in Las Vegas. 
      January 25 – The film M*A*S*H, directed by Robert Altman, premieres. 
      January 26 – Simon & Garfunkel release Bridge Over Troubled Water, their fifth and final album. 

      View the full article
  • Check out these Videos

×
×
  • Create New...