there could be some reduction in consumer’s surplus for this person.66 Therefore, the committee finds the overall analysis of socioeconomic impact intensities in the DEIS to have a high level of uncertainty.
III. WAYS TO REDUCE THE LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY
Conclusions on socioeconomic impacts in the DEIS would be less uncertain if an economic cost-benefit analysis were conducted that included: estimates of change in producer’s plus consumer’s surplus for shellfish; estimates of possible changes in consumer’s surplus through analysis of data available on the consumer’s surplus for various recreational activities;67 and an assessment of the significance of the survey data on attitudes with regard to the impact on non-use value.
66 The DEIS notes under the resource category on visitor experience and recreation: “Visitor services are defined by law as public accommodations, facilities, and services that are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the Seashore (36 CFR section 51.3).” DEIS p. 382-383, however, it is conventionally considered in socio-economic cost-benefit analysis of this type of program.
67 Kaval and Loomis (2003) provided information to NPS on the average consumer’s surplus per person by region for various types of outdoor recreation activity. The DEIS should have considered whether it could have extracted useful information from this or other sources regarding potential changes in consumer’s surplus.