0596-0240-STEW-MAP-Supporting Statement A_2021.10.01

Supporting Statement A

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP)

OMB Control Number 0596-0240

TERMS OF CLEARANCE: Previous Terms of Clearance/Comments: In accordance with 5 CFR 1320, the information collection is approved for three years. The agency must submit a summary of the results of the study to include an explanation of any changes to the survey or methodology due to the results with the renewal of this information collection request.

This is a request for renewal of the Forest Service Information Collection 0596-0240, the Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP). STEW-MAP assessments have been conducted in multiple locations by university, local government, and nongovernmental organizations conducting research in consultation with Forest Service scientists working in those areas.

Under the prior approval, STEW-MAP has been deployed or is in progress in several locations, including in the Bridger Teton National Forest region; Southern New England region; Springfield, Massachusetts; Oahu, Hawaii; Lima, Peru; and Medellín, Colombia. During this time frame for the prior approval, the response rate for the survey has been approximately 50%. We estimate that 500 people responded to the surveys in each of these STEW-MAP projects. In general, we have learned a lot from the previous STEW-MAP projects and published peer-reviewed articles, as well as reports. We have also built new interactive maps and dashboards to share information with land managers and the public. In each case, our local partners and the stewardship groups they work with have been enthusiastic about STEW-MAP and have indicated that it provides useful information that is not otherwise available to them.

STEW-MAP has developed a formalized methodology that is described in the General Technical Report (Svendsen et al. 2016). This resource has been requested and used numerous times by local stakeholders who are interested in understanding the process behind the data and what one can learn from mapping stewardship. Given that one of the key steps in the methodology is convening a group of stakeholders/data providers in order to build the survey sampling frame, it has been crucial to have this practitioner-oriented document that explains the process.

STEW-MAP has also informed the fundamental science of social-ecological systems, particularly in the areas of governance (Munoz-Erickson et al. 2016), sustainable cities (Romolini et al 2016), disturbance and social resilience (Campbell et al. 2019), spatial patterns of stewardship (Johnson et al. 2019), organizational social networks (Jasny et al. 2019), place meanings (Enqvist et al. 2019), and social infrastructure (Campbell et al. 2021). Reports and white papers have also been generated that summarize results from STEW-MAP replications in Los Angeles (Golly 2017), NY-NJ Harbor Estuary (Boicourt et al. 2016), and Philadelphia (Fisher et al. 2015). Finally, graduate student research has also used the STEW-MAP dataset, while advancing new areas of work on neighborhood-level stewardship (Boman 2017) and linkages to community resilience (Landau 2017). A list of publications generated from the previously approved collections are included in this resubmission and are accessible here: https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/STEW-MAP/pubs/.

Based on our experience implementing the survey previously, we have adjusted some particular questions. We continue to track organizational network data describing collaboration, resources, and knowledge; but we have also allowed locations to customize a question to capture issue-specific networks. The need for this modification was identified directly from the field – as locations wanted to understand networks related to particular disturbances (e.g., hurricanes, invasive pests, and wildfires). This additional question follows the exact format and method of the prior approval but allows locations to capture network data relevant to local disturbances of concern – strengthening the tool’s relevance for resilience planning and adaptation. Also, as we have shifted to online surveys that incorporate mapping software (e.g., Survey123), we have included a follow-up question after the respondent maps where their organization works, to understand how well the mapped data they created captures where their group works.

The STEW-MAP survey instruments used in each case were essentially the same with minor adjustments in wording for clarification and changes to the geographic questions to reflect specific local geography. STEW-MAP collection instruments for new regions have typically added specificity or subtracted questions, based on local relevance, but all possible questions are contained in the submitted appendices. For certain questions on the survey, we may make minor changes to make the survey applicable to certain groups/locations. For example, the following question "in the last year, what sites has your group’s stewardship work focused on" may be modified to include a locally relevant list of site types. Also, as noted in the survey submitted for approval, the following question “please tell us how influential the following plans and programs have been on your group’s work" will be customized to contain specific names of locally applicable information for the study area.

1. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

Across the country civic environmental stewards are involved in activities like planting trees, organizing community gardens, offering environment-themed classes, leading local conservation efforts, monitoring plants and animals, and cleaning up nearby parks or natural areas. People who do this work may not use the word “steward” or think of what they do as “stewardship”, however, they are indeed stewards of their local environments. In urban areas, metropolitan regions, towns, and rural areas, effective management of parks, public forests, natural areas, parkways, and other public open spaces increasingly relies on the work of civic environmental stewardship groups and coalitions. These may be nonprofit organizations, formal or informal community groups, faith-based organizations, or academic institutions. Their work leverages the efforts of local government officials, especially in lean budget times. But land managers and other decision makers often do not understand the roles and contributions of civic stewards. Stewards themselves may also not be aware of others doing similar work in their area.

At present, no natural resource agency or organization is collecting or distributing comprehensive civic stewardship data at the local level. This Information Collection will fill this gap by surveying formal and informal groups that work on environmental conservation, monitoring, education, advocacy, and/or preservation in a particular city, region, or rural area. The Forest Service will share this information with local managers and policy makers in government and the civic realm to support care of natural resources and provision of ecosystem services.

The Forest Service’s mandate includes providing science-based information to land managers and policy makers in cities and towns across the country to support their management of natural resources and to provide the most possible benefits to local populations. From the Forest Service’s Urban Forest Research website: “Forest Service [Research and Development] provides leading science and new technology that informs urban natural resources stewardship and improves environmental health and community well-being in urban areas. Our research helps to create more livable, desirable, sustainable communities. Forest Service scientists are at the forefront of urban forestry and socio-ecological (or human-environment) research, providing science that helps cities transition to a sustainable future” (italics added). This Information Collection will help the Forest Service better understand current urban natural resources stewardship so that we can provide advice and guidance on how to improve urban natural resources stewardship in the future, as well as natural resource stewardship on all lands.

The Forest Service also has a direct role in connecting urban residents with natural resources and natural areas through its Urban Connections program. From an Urban Connections handout: "What is Urban Connections? It is an outreach approach involving State and Private Forestry, Research, and the National Forest System to better understand urban stakeholders. It brings the Forest Service message of stewardship to non-traditional and culturally diverse populations by using the urban environment as a “bridge to the forest." This Information Collection will provide information to Urban Connections and other agency staff to help them "better understand urban stakeholders" and spread "the Forest Service message of stewardship."

From the Forest Service’s website: “The phrase, ‘Caring for the Land and Serving People,’ captures the Forest Service mission. As set forth in law, the mission is to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people: It includes: … Providing technical and financial assistance to cities and communities to improve their natural environment by planting trees and caring for their forests.” This Information Collection will help the Forest Service meet this goal by improving our understanding of existing stewardship activities including tree planting and care of natural resources.

This Information Collection will help the Forest Service better support expanding partnerships and volunteerism so that we can fulfill our role of guiding stewardship of forests and associated natural resources across the landscape in collaboration with a broad suite of partners. Since the last approval, STEW-MAP has successfully been applied on and around a National Forest, helping to inform public outreach and engagement strategies, partnership and network development, and coordination at the landscape scale.

In alignment with President Biden’s Executive Order 13985 “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” and the Agency’s commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, STEW-MAP can be used to identify civic groups working in historically marginalized or vulnerable communities, to acknowledge the work of informal and grassroots groups, and to extend potential partnerships ‘beyond the known knowns.’ It can also be used to identify ‘stewardship gaps’ -- areas that are underserved by active environmental stewardship and engagement. STEW-MAP utilizes methodologies to identify new and existing organizations working across a landscape and depicts strategic networks, stewardship gaps, and overlaps in activity. It can also be used to understand changes in stewardship groups and networks over time. STEW-MAP data can help address environmental justice at the landscape scale by promoting equity, coordination, collaboration, and synergies across mixed ownerships and among diverse stewardship groups.

The STEW-MAP census, survey, and follow-up interview protocol templates being submitted for approval are designed for implementation in any region of the United States. At this time, we do not know for sure where future STEW-MAP projects will be conducted, but decision makers, environmental professionals, and stewards in many cities, towns, regions, and National Forests have expressed interest in conducting or assisting with STEW-MAP assessments in order to learn about and leverage civic environmental stewardship in their area.

Relevant Statutes and Regulations

1. The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 [Section (9)(a), Findings] states that “The Congress finds that— (1) the health of forests in urban areas and communities, including cities, their suburbs, and towns, in the United States is on the decline; (2) forest lands, shade trees, and open spaces in urban areas and communities improve the quality of life for residents; (3) forest lands and associated natural resources enhance the economic value of residential and commercial property in urban and community settings;… (6) efforts to encourage tree plantings and protect existing open spaces in urban areas and communities can contribute to the social well-being and promote a sense of community in these areas; and (7) strengthened research, education, technical assistance, and public information and participation in tree planting and maintenance programs for trees and complementary ground covers for urban and community forests are needed to provide for the protection and expansion of tree cover and open space in urban areas and communities” [emphasis added].

Section (9)(b)(8) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 states that “The purposes of this section are to—… (8) expand existing research and educational efforts intended to improve understanding of— (A) tree growth and maintenance, tree physiology and morphology, species adaptations, and forest ecology, (B) the value of integrating trees and ground covers, (C) the economic, environmental, social, and psychological benefits of trees and forest cover in urban and community environments” [emphasis added].

Section 9(c) (General Authority) authorizes the Secretary to work with “State foresters or equivalent State officials,” “interested members of the public, including non-profit private organizations,” and “directly with units of local government and others” in carrying out the authorized activities.

Another part of the Act [Section 9(d)] states that “The Secretary, in cooperation with State foresters and State extension directors or equivalent State officials and interested members of the public, including nonprofit private organizations, shall implement a program of education and technical assistance for urban and community forest resources. The program shall be designed to… (4) assist in the development of State and local management plans for trees and associated resources in urban areas and communities; and (5) increase public understanding of the energy conservation, economic, social, environmental, and psychological values of trees and open space in urban and community environments and expand knowledge of the ecological relationships and benefits of trees and related resources in these environments” (italics added).

The ultimate goal of this Information Collection is to understand how forests and other natural resources are being cared for by civic stewards and to share this information with interested stakeholders including managers of public and private forests, open spaces, and natural areas. Better understanding of civic environmental stewardship in urban, suburban, and rural areas will lead to less duplication of effort and better coordinated land and resource management across small and large sites and multiple jurisdictions. By collecting and analyzing this information, the Forest Service will be able to meet its obligation to provide timely civic stewardship information to local land managers and policy makers.

2. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 authorizes US Forest Service “investigations, experiments, tests, and other activities… to obtain, analyze, develop, demonstrate, and disseminate scientific information about protecting, managing, and utilizing forest and rangeland renewable resources in rural, suburban, and urban areas” (SEC. 3. [16 U.S.C. 1642] (a)). STEW-MAP focuses on civic environmental stewards’ contribution to the care and management of renewable resources in urban and suburban areas, and could easily be adapted for use in rural areas. The USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station conducts research that aligns with five science themes. STEW-MAP falls under the “Urban Natural Resource Stewardship” theme.

3. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190), Section 102(2)(A) directs federal agencies to "utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences...in decision making which may have an impact on man's environment." This information collection will use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to collect information on civic environmental stewardship with the goal of improving natural resource management.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

1. What information will be collected - reported or recorded? (If there are pieces of information that are especially burdensome in the collection, a specific explanation should be provided.)

STEW-MAP has three phases. The information collected in each phase is described below.

• Phase One: A comprehensive list of stewardship groups in the targeted regions will be compiled in order to define the local stewardship population.

• Phase Two: A survey will be distributed to all of the stewardship groups identified in Phase One.
  
  

• Phase Three: One-on-one interviews will be conducted with key or “hub” organizations to gather detailed information about their organization’s history. Hub organizations are the groups that other groups reach out to for resources (e.g., funding, information, collaboration, etc.). Some STEW-MAP projects will have the need and resources to conduct follow-up interviews to better understand the network of stewards and how it functions, but such interviews are not required in order to make use of the stewardship data provided in Phase 2.

2. From whom will the information be collected? If there are different respondent categories (e.g., loan applicant versus a bank versus an appraiser), each should be described along with the type of collection activity that applies.

In each region, information will be collected from the stewardship groups identified during Phase 1 (as described above). They will include representatives from state, local, and Tribal Governments, community groups, and non-profit organizations that perform stewardship activities in the targeted region.

3. What will this information be used for - provide ALL uses?

This information will be used to:

1. Help planners, natural resource decision makers, land managers, and the general public work across property jurisdictions, management regimes, and political boundaries when caring for natural areas and natural resources;

2. Help civic stewardship groups and land management agencies conserve, protect, and manage natural resources more effectively and equitably;

3. Enhance local resource management efforts by helping public officials, land managers, and civic stewards connect to local stewardship groups in all communities across a landscape.

Because each STEW-MAP project is different, the stewardship information will be used in a wide variety of ways by the recipients of this information. The information might be used to create or adapt public land management policies. It might be used to help government officials and/or funders and/or land managers find and connect with stewardship groups—including in historically marginalized communities. It might help stewardship groups find each other. The information could also be used for addressing environmental justice issues in the geographic area.

Data on environmental stewardship work is of interest to local land managers, decision makers, and stewardship organizations and also to the larger natural resource research community. Therefore, we will develop a report summarizing the data for decision makers and other stakeholders and also publish articles about our research methods and findings in professional peer-reviewed journals.

Geographic information will be used by the Forest Service to analyze the extent and distribution of stewardship activities across the city or region and conduct spatial analysis on stewardship work by different types of groups. The data will also be used to identify stewardship “hotspots” (places where many groups are working) and “gaps” (places where little to no stewardship is being done). The stewardship territories will be displayed on online maps and presented in meetings with stewards, local land managers, decision makers, and other interested stakeholders to show how stewardship work is distributed across the region.

Social networking data that stewardship groups provide about other groups that they go to for funding, information, and collaboration, as well as networks related to particular disturbances, will be used to complete a social network analysis of environmental stewardship in the region. Social network data highlights effective routes of communication and outreach among stewardship groups working in the same region and helps strengthen resilience planning and adaptation. The analysis diagrams and findings will be made available online at the local STEW-MAP project website, presented to stewardship groups and decision makers in the project area, and may be published in professional journals.

Information gathered in follow-up interviews with key stewardship organizations (phase 3) will be used to gain a deeper understanding of the role(s) that these groups and organizations play in caring for natural resources in the city or region. The information will also be used to try to understand how successful stewardship groups are structured, how they operate, and what makes them effective. This analysis will be presented to local stewardship groups, made available in report form, and may be published in professional journals.

Information gathered about civic stewardship groups and their activities will also be shared during meeting presentations with urban foresters, other natural resource managers, and other decision makers in accordance with the Cooperative Urban Forestry Assistance Act of 1978’s mandate to “increase public understanding of the energy conservation, economic, social, environmental, and psychological values of trees and open space in urban and community environments and expand knowledge of the ecological relationships and benefits of trees and related resources in these environments” [Section 9(d)(5)].

4. How will the information be collected (e.g., forms, non-forms, electronically, face-to-face, over the phone, over the Internet)? Does the respondent have multiple options for providing the information? If so, what are they?

Phase One (Census) will involve asking large stewardship organizations and local government agencies in person or by email to share existing contact lists of the stewardship organizations that they work with or know of. Online research will be done to identify additional organizations.

In Phase Two (Survey), all of the stewardship groups identified in Phase One will be asked to complete an online survey. Stewardship group representatives will be sent an email invitation with a link to participate in an online survey. Alternatively, paper copies of the survey will be provided to anyone who does not have Internet access or is not comfortable using the online survey. It is also possible for respondents to speak to a researcher by phone to answer the survey questions.

Phase Three (Follow-up Interviews) involves in-person or, if necessary, videoconference or over-the-phone interviews of leaders from key stewardship groups identified in Phase Two. These interviews will be recorded with the interviewee’s permission and later transcribed and analyzed.

5. How frequently will the information be collected?

The information will initially be collected one time in each location. Ideally, data collection will then be repeated every 5-10 years so that stewardship groups can update their information and additional groups can have an opportunity to participate. For research purposes, collecting the information every 5-10 years allows analysis of how stewardship organizations and stewardship patterns change over time.

6. Will the information be shared with any other organizations inside or outside USDA or the government?

This information will be published on various websites for anyone to access. Each respondent can indicate on their survey whether or not they want the information they provide to be publicly available when the survey is completed and the results are published online. Only organization-level information, not information about individuals, will be made available online.

7. If this is an ongoing collection, how have the collection requirements changed over time?

This is a renewal Information Collection for the Agency. STEW-MAP assessments have been conducted in multiple locations by university, local government, and nongovernmental organizations conducting research in consultation with Forest Service scientists working in those areas.

The STEW-MAP survey instruments used in each case were essentially the same with minor adjustments in wording for clarification and changes to the geographic questions to reflect local geography and the addition of location-specific network questions about disturbance. STEW-MAP collection instruments for new regions have typically added or subtracted questions, based on local relevance. These previous efforts have informed the protocol submitted here.

Under the prior approval, STEW-MAP has been deployed or is in progress in several locations, including in the Bridger Teton National Forest region; Southern New England region; Springfield, Massachusetts; Oahu, Hawaii; Lima, Peru; and Medellín, Colombia. During this time frame for the prior approval, the response rate for the survey has been approximately 50%. In general, we have learned a lot from the previous STEW-MAP projects and published peer-reviewed articles, as well as reports. In each case, Forest Service managers, our local partners and the stewardship groups they work with have been enthusiastic about STEW-MAP and have indicated that it provides useful information that is not otherwise available to them.

Some estimates have been adjusted since the prior approval. The estimates for respondents to the phase one census have increased slightly based on our experience with the likely number of stewardship organizations in each location. The phase three respondent estimate has also increased since the last approval based on partner and stakeholder needs to better understand the histories and work of a wider range and diversity of groups across the network through semi-structured interviews. We anticipate increasing the number of projects conducted as we expand deployment in different regions. For this approval, we’ve estimated an average of 10 different STEW-MAP projects per year. Conducting future STEW-MAP assessments across the nation will allow US Forest Service researchers to take a more prominent role in future projects and to develop STEW-MAP as a Forest Service-branded methodology for assessing civic environmental stewardship.

2. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

The survey will be conducted primarily online. Paper copies of the survey will also be made available for anyone who does not have Internet access or requests a paper copy. In rare cases, respondents may speak to a researcher by phone to answer the survey questions. Information provided on paper surveys or over the phone will be entered into the online survey by a member of the research team on behalf of the respondent so that all of the survey data is in the same electronic database.

2. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

As stated in question 2g above, STEW-MAP assessments have been conducted in multiple locations with Forest Service researchers acting as consultants and technical advisors. In all cases, there were no other systematic efforts to collect the kind of detailed information about local stewardship that STEW-MAP provides. We expect this to be the case as additional STEW-MAP assessments are conducted in other locations.

All of the researchers already connected with STEW-MAP (both in Forest Service and at partner organizations) have an active professional interest in civic environmental stewardship and keep abreast of the professional literature on this topic. None of the existing articles and books on civic environmental stewardship are connected to systematic, science-based efforts to collect detailed original data on local civic stewardship groups in the United States. Andrews and Edwards (2005) surveyed local environmental groups in North Carolina to see how the groups were structured and what they worked on; however, they focused mainly on formal stewardship groups (such as local affiliates of national organizations like the Sierra Club), did not map the groups’ geographic stewardship areas (‘turfs’), did not conduct a network analysis of ties between the groups, and focused on “environmentalism” meaning environmental advocacy more than on-the-ground stewardship.

We thoroughly searched the OMB OIRA database for similar information collections that have been submitted for OMB review by federal agencies. We searched Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency surveys because these agencies have natural resource management or environment-focused missions. We used the search terms “volunteer,” “stewardship,” and “trees.” We found no information collections that collect comparable data.

2. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

Small nonprofit or informal community groups that do environmental stewardship work are part of the target population for STEW-MAP. We are not targeting small businesses for this information collection.

We have made every effort to keep the survey as short as possible, use uncomplicated wording for each question, provide clear response instructions, and ask only questions that have clear research and application value. The survey questions are designed such that someone in a leadership role with a stewardship group will not have to research their responses. The online survey eases some response burden by allowing participants to stop completing the survey if they run out of time or are interrupted and return at a later time to continue. We have also tried to reduce the response burden by allowing participants to complete the survey on paper or by phone.

2. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

The Forest Service’s mission includes care of the nation’s forests, including its urban forests. Another part of the mission is to provide technical assistance to municipalities, states, and nongovernmental organizations regarding stewardship of natural resources. Care of the nation’s forests and other natural resources and providing technical assistance requires partnering with outside organizations including community organizations, not-for-profits, businesses, and government agencies at the local, state, and national level in order to help reach shared goals.

Without this information collection, we would be unable to understand the current state of civic natural resource stewardship and we would be unable to identify the organizations that we may provide assistance to for a given geographical area. Without the ability to identify the stewardship community, we would be unable to provide efficient and effective technical assistance and would be unable to provide scientific information about sustainability to planners and policy makers.

2. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:

• Requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

• Requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

• Requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

• Requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;

• In connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;

• Requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

• That includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or

• Requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secret, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

Although there is no requirement to do so, typically respondents will complete a survey response in fewer than 30 days of receipt. There are no other special circumstances. The collection of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6.

2. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The 60-day request for public comment was published in the Federal register on July 13, 2021, pages 36698-36700. We did not receive any comments.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

The STEW-MAP survey used in Phase Two has previously been approved by the institutional review boards (IRBs) at Rutgers University, The Field Museum, Columbia University, the University of Washington, and the University of Vermont. For Phase Three, the follow-up interview protocol for leaders of key organizations has previously been used only in New York City where it was approved by Columbia University and Rutgers University’s IRB.

The following individuals outside of the USDA Forest Service were consulted about development of the STEW-MAP survey instrument for the place they work in, the availability of existing stewardship data in their area, the clarity of instructions on the survey, disclosure guidelines, reporting format, and the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

• Sarah Walker, Director, Friends of Bridger Teton National Forest

• Heather McMillen, State of Hawaii

• Can Sucuoglu, Pratt Spatial Analysis and Visualization Initiative

• Nicole Heise Vigil, Ficus Peru Desarrollo Socioambiental

• María del Pilar Arroyave, Universidad EIA

• Miriam Avins, Founder & Executive Director, Baltimore Green Space

• Weston Brinkley, Street Sounds Ecology LLC

• Jackie Carrera, formerly President & CEO, Parks & People Foundation

• Abby Cocke, City of Baltimore Department of Planning

• Dana Fisher, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Maryland, Dept of Sociology

• Morgan Monaco, City of New York Mayor’s Office of Operations

• Kizzy Guzman-Charles, City of New York Office of Recovery and Resiliency

• Michele Romolini, PhD, Loyola Marymount University’s Center for Urban Resilience

• Laurel Ross, Urban Conservation Director, The Field Museum (retired)

• David Maddox, The Nature of Cities

• David Hancock, National Agricultural Statistical Service

• Lorien Jasny, University of Exeter, Department of Politics

The following three individuals provided an external review of this information collection:

• Kathleen Bell, University of Maine

• Emily Huff, Michigan State University

• Anita Morzillo, University of Connecticut

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

We consulted with several participants from previous STEW-MAP projects in Hawaii, Bridger Teton National Forest, Springfield, and Southern New England to ask for their feedback about how to make the Phase Two survey most applicable, shorter and easier to fill out. This led to the addition of the location-specific network disturbance question. The mapping portion of the survey has proved challenging for many respondents and we refined the online mapping tool in the Bridger Teton and Springfield, MA surveys and developed a new survey collection form via Survey123. We retained the option that offers to do the mapping for the respondents if they provided a text description of the sites or territories where they work. This option worked well and will continue to be used in future projects.

For Phase One (Census), there is one question, “Please can you provide a list of stewardship group names and contact information?” We have not received any negative feedback.

For Phase Three (Follow-up Interviews), participants have not suggested any changes about the Phase Three interviews.

2. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than re-enumeration of contractors or grantees.

Responses for all three Phases of STEW-MAP are strictly voluntary. In Phase Two (Survey) of some STEW-MAP projects, payments or gifts (incentives) may be offered if needed to help improve response rates. Incentives will be added if they are deemed useful to raise response rates and if STEW-MAP partners in a given location are able to fund them. A lottery format will be used. All groups that complete the survey will be entered into a drawing (that is, incentives will be equitably distributed). Example incentives could be a single large (e.g., $100) gift card to a home improvement store, 2-5 smaller gift cards to a home improvement store, and, if possible, in-kind or non-monetary gifts such as passes to a local museum or botanic garden. The incentives would be structured to fit the given location (i.e., what would be of interest in one location may not be of interest in another; this will be taken into account).

2. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

There are two places in Phase Two (Survey) where anonymity is addressed. One of the first survey sections asks respondents to provide their name and contact information and the following assurance is printed in the survey: “Your personal information is confidential. We will not share your name, personal email, personal phone number, or other identifying information with anyone outside of the research team. We will only use this information to contact you if we have questions about information you provide on this survey.”

Later, each respondent is asked “Does your group/organization wish to be on the online stewardship map?” with the option to check “Yes” or “No.” The following explanation is provided immediately after that question: “Note: The information associated with your group on the map will be limited to group/organization name, website, mailing address, group/organization email, group/organization phone number, what you primarily work on – plus your geographic territory, which will be addressed later in this survey.” Organizations are only added to the map if their representative checks “Yes.”

2. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

No sensitive questions will be asked.

2. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated.

• Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form.

The burden calculations below are based on experience from previous STEW-MAP projects. We expect to complete 10 STEW-MAP projects per year. Over the 3-year period of this approval, up to 30 projects will be conducted. The calculations below are based on the annual burden for this request. Please note that we do not know which areas future STEW-MAP projects will be conducted in or how many stewardship groups there are in those regions.

• Before we commence Phase One, there will be a pre-survey consultation with 5 local stewardship group representatives or environmental professionals per project regarding survey question wording and outreach advice.

• Phase One: Census

Round 1: We will contact 30 organizations in each of the 10 selected study areas (n=300 across all locations). Each organization will be asked to provide the names and contact information of at least 50 stewardship groups in their geographic area (n=1,500 per study area, for a total of 15,000 across all locations).

Round 2: If we do not receive 1,500 names per study area, we will contact an additional 30 organizations per study area from the list of names provided in Round 1 until we reach 1,500 names per study area, for a total of 15,000 across all locations to survey in Phase 2.

• Phase Two: Survey

Main Survey: We will reach out to all 15,000 contacts across all locations obtained during Phase One, inviting them to complete the survey. We are expecting a 50% response rate that will provide us with 7,500 completed responses across all locations.

Non-response Survey: Assuming a 50% (n=7,500 across all locations), we will conduct a brief non-response bias survey with 10% of all non-respondents (n=750 across all locations). We estimate a 10% response rate (n=50). This survey will take 1 minute to complete.

• Phase Three: Interviews

Follow-up Interviews – We will interview a maximum of 30 leaders from key hub organizations in each study area (n=300 across all locations). Each interview will take about one hour to complete.

(Please see Excel file). We estimate that per year, there will be 8,525 respondents, with an annual burden of 4,304 hours. For non-respondents, we estimate 8,175 non-respondents, with an annual burden of 261 hours. The total number of respondents and non-respondents is estimated to be 16,700 people and the burden hours for respondents and non-respondents is estimated to be 4,565 hours.

Record keeping burden should be addressed separately and should include columns for:

a) Description of record keeping activity:

b) Number of record keepers:

c) Annual hours per record keeper:

d) Total annual record keeping hours:

There are no record-keeping requirements placed upon the respondents.

Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories.

Please see table 1.

Table 1 Cost to Respondents across 10 study area regions

(a) Description of the Collection Activity	(b) Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents (Hours)	(c) Estimated Average Income per Hour	(d) Estimated Cost to All Respondents
Pre-survey consultation with 5 local stewardship group representatives or environmental professionals per project regarding survey question wording and outreach advice	100	$64.00*	$6,400
Phase One (Census)	150	$43.40**	$ 6,510
Phase Two (Survey): Filling out the STEW-MAP survey – civic stewardship group representatives	3,750	$43.40**	$ 162,750
Phase Two (Non-respondents)	4	$43.40**	$ 173.60
Phase Three: Follow-up interviews with leaders at key civic stewardship orgs	300	$64.00*	$ 19,200
Total	4,304		$ 195,033.60

* We estimate that leaders of key hub organizations make $50/hour on average based on our professional knowledge and experience. We multiplied the hourly rate by 1.28 to account for benefits (following BLS guidance).

** We used mean hourly wage for “Social and Community Service Managers” from BLS at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119151.htm ($33.91) to reflect our expectation that the majority of respondents will work at nonprofit organizations or will be acting as social or community service managers even if they are actually unpaid volunteers. We multiplied the hourly rate by 1.28 to account for benefits.

2. Provide estimates of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information, (do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in items 12 and 14). The cost estimates should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component annualized over its expected useful life; and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component.

There are no capital operation and maintenance costs.

2. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Provide a description of the method used to estimate cost and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The response to this question covers the actual costs the agency will incur as a result of implementing the information collection. The estimate should cover the entire life cycle of the collection and include costs, if applicable, for:

• Employee labor and materials for developing, printing, storing forms

• Employee labor and materials for developing computer systems, screens, or reports to support the collection

• Employee travel costs

• Cost of contractor services or other reimbursements to individuals or organizations assisting in the collection of information

• Employee labor and materials for collecting the information

• Employee labor and materials for analyzing, evaluating, summarizing, and/or reporting on the collected information

The total annualized cost to the Federal government for conducting 10 STEW-MAP projects is estimated to be $419,813 which includes $297,913 for federal salaries and $121,900 for operational expenses. This estimate is based on our experience with other STEW-MAP collections. The estimate of 10 projects per year is based on the expected number of projects that our partners across the country can complete in a year with our assistance. Since the prior approval, our cost estimate for designing and hosting the online survey has decreased, based on our development of a standardized Survey123 template that is available for locations to use and adapt.

The excel file Table 2 shows Federal staff and grade levels performing various tasks associated with this information collection. We used the Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2021 General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables to determine the hourly rate https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/21Tables/html/DEN_h.aspx. We multiplied the hourly rate by 1.28 to account for benefits.

Because the location of future STEW-MAP projects is unknown, the following estimates are made based on the Denver, Colorado federal employee pay schedule (Denver’s locality pay at 22.52% is the mid-range for mid to large-size U.S. cities). While the survey will be conducted in about a year, there is pre-work and data analysis afterward therefore a two-year project timeline is expected.

2. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB form 83-I.

This is a renewal of a previously approved collection. Previously, we received approval for 6,050 total respondents and non-respondents and 1,642 total burden hours for respondents and non-respondents. Our projections have adjusted based on experience with the deploying this information collection under the first approval. We have more accurately projected burden hours for respondents and non-respondents.

2. For collections of information whose results are planned to be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication.

Summarized, descriptive statistics of collected information may be published in tabular form in peer-reviewed journal articles and posted on STEW-MAP related websites. Data from the survey that may be published include descriptive statistics, network analysis, cross-area comparisons of survey responses, geographic data and analysis of geographic distribution of stewardship, and analysis of stewardship trends over time. Possible professional journals include those that focus on social network analysis, natural resource management, geographic data, and analysis of volunteers such as Journal of Forestry, Society and Natural Resources, Local Environment, Journal of Environmental Management, and Cities and the Environment. Analysis and tabulation of data will follow established social science protocols. Some STEW-MAP projects may be summarized in on-line or published reports (Government Technical Reports, etc.).

2. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The valid OMB control number and expiration date will be displayed on all information collection instruments.

2. Explain each exception to the certification statement, "Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act."

The agency is able to certify compliance with 5 CFR 1320.

References

Boicourt, Kate; Pirani, Robert; Johnson, Michelle; Svendsen, Erika; Campbell, Lindsay K. 2016. Connecting with our waterways: an assessment of public access and stewardship in the New York - New Jersey Harbor Estuary. New York, NY: NY-NJ Harbor and Estuary Program; and Hudson River Foundation. 36 p.

Boman, Johanna. 2017. Environmental Stewardship Nurturing urban environmental stewardship – a case study of Greenpoint, Brooklyn New York. Masters Thesis. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 71pps. (pdf)

Campbell, Lindsay K.; Svendsen, Erika; Johnson, Michelle; Landau, Laura. 2021. Activating urban environments as social infrastructure through civic stewardship. Urban Geography. 43(4): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.1920129.

Campbell, Lindsay K.; Svendsen, Erika; Sonti, Nancy Falxa; Hines, Sarah J.;Maddox, David, eds. 2019. Green Readiness, Response, and Recovery: A Collaborative Synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-185. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 358 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-185.

Enqvist, Johan P.; Campbell, Lindsay K.; Stedman, Richard C.; Svendsen, Erika S. 2019. Place meanings on the urban waterfront: a typology of stewardships. Sustainability Science. 14(3): 589-605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00660-5.

Fisher, Dana R.; Svendsen, Erika S.; Waggle, Joseph; Galli, Anya M.; Low, Sarah C. 2015. Under the Green Umbrella: A Census of Civic Environmental Stewardship Organizations in the City of Philadelphia. Program for Society and the Environment, University of Maryland and US Forest Service, Northern Research Station White Paper. 29 p. (pdf)

Golly, Krystle M., Assessing the distribution of environmental stewardship organizations and their relationship to the demographics of Los Angeles County (2017).LMU/LLS Theses and Dissertations. 319. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/etd/319

Jasny, Lorien; Johnson, Michelle; Campbell, Lindsay K.; Svendsen, Erika; Redmond, Josh. 2019. Working together: the roles of geographic proximity, homophilic organizational characteristics, and neighborhood context in civic stewardship collaboration networks in Philadelphia and New York City. Ecology and Society. 24(4): 8. 24 p. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11140-240408.

Johnson, Michelle L.; Locke, Dexter H.; Svendsen, Erika; Campbell, Lindsay K.; Westphal, Lynne M.; Romolini, Michele; Grove, J. Morgan. 2019. Context matters: influence of organizational, environmental, and social factors on civic environmental stewardship group intensity. Ecology and Society. 24(4): 14 p. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10924-240401.

Landau, Laura F. 2017. "Place-Based Approaches to Community Resilience through Response, Recovery, and Preparedness." Master of Science in City and Regional Planning Thesis, School of Architecture, Pratt Institute. Posted with permission, 2017.01.11. (pdf)

Muñoz-Erickson, T.A.; Campbell, L.K.; Childers, D.L.; Grove, J.M.; Iwaniec, D.M.; Pickett, S.T.A. et al. 2016 Demystifying governance and its role for transitions in urban social–ecological systems. Ecosphere, 7 (11), 1-11.

Romolini, Michele; Bixler, R. Patrick; Grove, J. Morgan. 2016. A Social-ecological framework for urban stewardship network research to promote sustainable and resilient cities. Sustainability. 8(10): 956. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8090956 [15 p.].

Svendsen, Erika S.; Campbell, Lindsay K.; Fisher, Dana R.; Connolly, James J.T.; Johnson, Michelle L.; Sonti, Nancy F.; Locke, Dexter H.; Westphal, Lynne M.; LeBlanc Fisher, Cherie; Grove, J. Morgan; Romolini, Michele; Blahna, Dale J.; Wolf, Kathleen L. 2016. Stewardship mapping and assessment project: a framework for understanding community-based environmental stewardship. Gen. Tech. Rep. 156. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 134 p.

Page 1 of 17