• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of appendix tables
 List of Figures
 Acknowledgement
 Summary
 Chapter I: Commercial fishing port...
 Chapter II: The fishing and seafood...
 Chapter III: Port facilities and...
 Chapter IV: Future possibilities...
 Chapter V: Review and conclusi...
 Appendix A
 Appendix B: Questionnaires - detailed...
 Appendix C
 Reference






Group Title: FAMRC industry report 78-6
Title: Commercial fishing port development in North Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026874/00001
 Material Information
Title: Commercial fishing port development in North Florida a report
Series Title: Industry report Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Physical Description: xix, 222 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Mathis, Kary, 1936-
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Food and Resource Economics Dept., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1978
 Subjects
Subject: Fishing ports -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Fisheries -- Statistics -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Bays -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Summary: Tracings: G413.1, G443.
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 222.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kary Mathis ... et al..
General Note: "A research project conducted for the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc."
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026874
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 002535116
oclc - 06580866
notis - AMQ1064
lccn - 79625747

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    List of Tables
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
    List of appendix tables
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
    List of Figures
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
    Acknowledgement
        Page xvi
    Summary
        Page xvii
        Page xviii
        Page xix
    Chapter I: Commercial fishing port development in north Florida
        Page 1
        Introduction
            Page 1
        Objectives
            Page 2
        Sponsor
            Page 3
        Procedures
            Page 3
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Escambia county
                Page 6
            Bay county
                Page 7
            Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla counties
                Page 8
            Nassau and Duval counties
                Page 8
                Page 9
    Chapter II: The fishing and seafood industry
        Page 10
        Fishery resources
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Escambia county
                Page 13
            Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla counties
                Page 13
                Page 14
                Page 15
                Bay county
                    Page 16
                    Page 17
                    Page 18
                Gulf county
                    Page 19
                Franklin county
                    Page 19
                    Page 20
                Wakulla county
                    Page 21
                    Page 22
                    Page 23
            Nassau and Duval counties
                Page 24
                Nassau county
                    Page 24
                    Page 25
                    Page 26
                Duval county
                    Page 27
                    Page 28
        Fisherman and fishing craft
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
        Marketing and processing
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
    Chapter III: Port facilities and services
        Page 36
        Escambia county
            Page 37
            Current facilities
                Page 37
                Page 38
                Page 39
                Page 40
            Needed facilities
                Page 41
                Page 42
        Bay county
            Page 43
            Current facilities
                Page 43
                Page 44
        Gulf county
            Page 45
            Current facilities
                Page 45
                Page 46
                Page 47
            Needed facilities
                Page 48
        Franklin county
            Page 49
            Current facilities
                Page 49
                Page 50
            Needed facilities
                Page 51
                Apalachicola
                    Page 51
                    Page 52
                Eastpoint
                    Page 53
                Carrabelle
                    Page 53
        Wakulla county
            Page 54
            Current facilities
                Page 54
            Needed facilities
                Page 54
                Page 55
                Page 56
                Page 57
        Nassau county
            Page 58
            Current facilities
                Page 58
            Needed facilities
                Page 58
                Page 59
                Page 60
        Duval county
            Page 61
            Current facilities
                Page 61
            Needed facilities
                Page 62
                Page 63
        Summary of improvements needed
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
    Chapter IV: Future possibilities in resources and port development
        Page 67
        Underutilized resources
            Page 67
            Page 68
            Page 69
            Page 70
        A major seafood port - preliminary analysis
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
            Page 74
            Page 75
            Page 76
            Page 77
    Chapter V: Review and conclusions
        Page 78
        The region and its fishery resources
            Page 78
        Port facilities
            Page 79
        Funding sources for port development
            Page 79
        Conclusions
            Page 80
    Appendix A
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
    Appendix B: Questionnaires - detailed summary of questionnaire disposition
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 144a
        Page 145
        Page 145a
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
    Appendix C
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
    Reference
        Page 168
        Page 169
Full Text


DIGITIZATION PERMISSION

[year of pubhcation] Florida Museum of Natural History [source text]

The Florida Museum of Natural History, formerly the Florda State
Museum, holds all nghts to the source text of ths electronic resource on
behalf ofthe State of Flonda The Flonda Museum of Natural History shall
be considered the copyrght holder for the text and images of this
publication

Under the Statutes of Flonda (FS 25705, 257 105, and 377 075), the Flonda
Museum of Natural History (Ganesville, FL) publisher of the Bulletin of the
Flonda State Museum, as a division of state government makes its
documents public ( e publshed) and extends to the state's official agencies
and hbranes, including the University ofFlonda's Smathers Library, limited
nghts of reproduction

The Flonda Museum of Natural History has made this publication available
to the University of Flonda, on behalf of the State Unversity System, for
purposes of digitization and Internet distnbution

The Flonda Museum of Natural History reserves all nghts to this
publication All uses, excluding those made under "fair use" provisions of
United States of Amenca copynght legislation (U S Code, Title 17, Section
107), are restricted Contact the Flonda Museum of Natural History, a
division of the Unversity of Flonda, i Gamesville, Flonda, for additional
information and permission


















101






Ak3












Abstract


The seven Florida counties considered in this report contain the major
fishing ports in the northern half of the state. Total 1976 landings of
fish and shellfish were valued at $22 million, provided by an estimated
1,034 boat owners and 1,610 boats. Fishing and directly related activities
are major sources of income and employment in three of the seven counties,
but relatively small economic sectors in the remaining four.

Trends in volumes of fish and shellfish landings have varied among
the counties. All counties experienced increases from 1971 through 1973,
with declines from 1973 to 1976. Added fishing effortand landings for species
currently unutilized or underutilized could change the fishing industry and
ports in the seven counties covered. Primary effects would be on Gulf ports,
although some underutilized species are also available in the Atlantic.

Shore facilities supporting commercial fishing in the seven counties
are generally inadequate. Even in northeast Florida, where numbers of fisher-
men and landings volumes have declined, port facilities have many shortcomings.
In Gulf ports where relatively large numbers of boats land sizable volumes,
most port facilities and services are seriously inadequate.

Docks and gear storage facilities are needed in nearly all ports and
some need channel improvement as well. These kinds of investments would
most likely be best suited for public funds, while private firms would be
most likely to establish or add to ice plants, bait and fuel facilities,
and gear, electronics and engine supply and repair activities. Mail surveys
and personal interviews with fishermen and dealers pointed out needs for
facilities and services in the seven counties.

A "package" of needed facilities and services suitable for public in-
vestment was developed for each port, with costs, revenues and a pro forma
balance. Total estimated costs for all facilities in all nine ports in the
seven counties were in excess of $15 million.

Estimates of costs for a major industrial seafood port were also develop-
ed. This port, based on 600 vessels and 30 million pounds in landings, was
estimated to cost $24.4 million. Public investments were $12.6 million, with
the remainder being private capital for handling and processing, services
and repair and related businesses.


Key words: Fish and shellfish landings trends, port improvements,
characteristics of Florida fishermen and dealers.













COMMERCIAL FISHING PORT DEVELOPMENT IN
NORTH FLORIDA












A Report by

Kary Mathis, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner
Paul D. Landrum and Fred J. Prochaska








A research project conducted for the
Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries
Development Foundation, Inc.



September 1978


The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611












The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center

A Service of
the Food and Resource Economics Department
of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences




The purpose of this Center is to provide timely, applied

research on current and emerging marketing problems affecting

Florida's agricultural and marine industries. The Center seeks

to provide research and information to production, marketing,

and processing firms, groups and organizations concerned with

improving and expanding markets for Florida agricultural and

marine products.

The Center is staffed by a basic group of economists trained

in agriculture and marketing. In addition, cooperating personnel

from other IFAS units provide a wide range of expertise which can

be applied as determined by the requirements of individual projects.


ii


This research was supported in part by a grant from
the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries
Development Foundation, Inc., under contract 03-01-24000













TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... ........ vi

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES ............................................ x

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... ...... .... xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................... ....................... ... .... xvi

SUMMARY .................................... .... .. ........ xvii

CHAPTER

I COMMERCIAL FISHING PORT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH FLORIDA ...... 1

Introduction .................................... ... ... 1
Objectives ........................ ......... ...... ....... 2
Sponsor ....................................... ....... 3
Procedures ........................................... 3
Escambia County ....................................... 6
Bay County .......................................... 7
Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla Counties ................... 8
Nassau and Duval Counties ........................... 8

II THE FISHING AND SEAFOOD INDUSTRY ......................... 10

Fishery Resources ..................................... 10
Escambia County ....................................... 13
Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties ............. 13
Bay County ........................................ 16
Gulf County ....................................... 19
Franklin County ................................... 19
Wakulla County .................................... 21
Nassau and Duval Counties ........................... 24
Nassau County ...................................... 24
Duval County ........................................ 27
Fishermen and Fishing Craft ........................... 29
Marketing and Processing .............................. 32

III PORT FACILITIES AND SERVICES ............................ 36

Escambia County ......................................... 37
Current Facilities .................................. 37
Needed Facilities ............................. ....... 41



iii








TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Page
Bay County ...................................... ...... 43
Current Facilities .................................. 43
Gulf County .................................... ..... 45
Current Facilities .................................. 45
Needed Facilities .................................... 48
Franklin County ..................................... 49
Current Facilities ................................... 49
Needed Facilities .......... ......................... 51
Apalachicola ....................................... 51
Eastpoint ......................................... 53
Carrabelle ...................................... 53
Wakulla County ......................................... 54
Current Facilities ................................... 54
Needed Facilities ................................... 54
Nassau County ......................................... 58
Current Facilities ................................... 58
Needed Facilities .................................... 58
Duval County ............................ ............ 61
Current Facilities .................................. 61
Needed Facilities .................................... 62
Summary of Improvements Needed ......................... 64

IV FUTURE POSSIBILITIES IN RESOURCES AND PORT DEVELOPMENT .... 67

Underutilized Resources ............................... 67
A Major Seafood Port Preliminary Analysis ............. 71

V REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS .................................. 78

The Region and Its Fishery Resources .................... 78
Port Facilities ......................................... 79
Funding Sources for Port Development .................... 79
Conclusions ........................... .......... .... .. 80

APPENDIX A ................................................ .. 81

APPENDIX B ................................................. 144

APPENDIX C ..................................................... 155

REFERENCES .................. .................. .. ....... .. 168

REMOTE SENSING EVALUATION OF PORT SITES ............................. 171

Procedure ................................................... 173
The Gulf Coast of Northern Florida ............................ 174


iv









TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Page

History and Physiography ...................... .............. 174
The Embayed Alluvial Coast ................................. 175
The Apalachicola Foreland .................................. 175
The Big Bend Drowned Karst ................................ 177
Tides ...................................................... 177
The Nature of the Fishing Grounds ............................. 177
Existing Port and Potential Site Evaluations .................... 184
Pensacola, Escambia County .................................. 184
Panama City, Bay County ....................................... 190
Port St. Joe, Gulf County .................................... 195
Apalachicola, Franklin County ................................. 200
Eastpoint, Franklin County ................................. 206
Carrabelle, Franklin County ................................. 207
Panacea, Wakulla County ..................................... 212

Summary and Conclusions ......................................... 217

Glossary .................................................. .. .......... 220

Organizations Offering Available Imagery and Information ........ 221

References ....... .............................. ........... 222


v













LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 North Florida coastal counties grouped by level of
commercial fishing activity.................................. 5

2 Value and volume of seafood landings for Florida counties,
1976....................................................... 11

3 Landings in 1976 and trends from 1967 to 1976 in landings of
inshore and offshore fish and shellfish, seven north Florida
counties ............................................ ....... 15

4 Estimated number of commercial boat owners and vessels using
northwest and northeast Florida ports, 1975 ................. 30

5 Estimated number of vessels using ports, by type, length and
draft, 1978..... .................................... .. 31

6 Number of fish and shellfish dealers and processors by
county, 1976.. ................. .............. ..... ..... 33

7 Classification of dealers responding in seven major counties
by volume of fish and shellfish handled in 1976.............. 34

8 Product distribution from coastal fish dealers by market area,
type of buyer andproduct form, northwest Florida grouper-
snapper industry, 1977....................................... 35

9 Groups of facilities and services evaluated by port users in
north Florida survey, 1977.................................... 36

10 Fishing port facility needs in seven north Florida counties,
1978.......................................... .............. 38

11 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Escambia County, 1977................. 39

12 Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen in
Escambia County, 1977...................................... 40

13 Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Pensacola, 1978. 42

14 Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Pensacola........................ 43


vi









LIST OF TABLES (continued)


Table Page

15 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Bay County, 1977...................... 44

16 Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen in
Bay County, 1977 .................... .......................... 46

17 Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Panama City,
1978..................................... ....................... 46

18 Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five year projection, Panama City..................... 46

19 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by fish-
ermen in Gulf County, 1977.................................... 47

20 Ratings of seafood port facilities by fishermen in Gulf County,
1977....... .................................... ............ 47

21 Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Port St. Joe,
1978....................................... ....... ........... 48

22 Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Port St. Joe.................... 49

23 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Franklin County, 1977................ 50

24 Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen in
Franklin County, 1977....................................... 51

25 Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Apalachicola,
1978................................................ ........ 52

26 Estimated annual revenue, expense and return, for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Apalachicola.................... 52

27 Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Eastpoint, 1978. 53

28 Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port invest-
ments, five-year projections, Eastpoint....................... 54

29 Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Carrabelle,1978.55

30 Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Carrabelle ....................... 56

31 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by commer-
cial fishermen in Wakulla County, 1977......................... 56


vii








LIST OF TABLES (continued)


Table Page

32 Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen
in Wakulla County, 1977....................................... 57

33 Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Panacea, 1978... 57

34 Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Panacea.......................... 58

35 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by commer-
cial fishermen in Nassau County, 1977.......................... 59

36 Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen in
Nassau County, 1977................... ........................ 60

37 Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Fernandina
Beach, 1978..................... ................. ................ 60

38 Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Fernandina Beach.................. 61

39 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Duval County, 1977..................... 62

40 Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen in
Duval County................. ................. .... ... .......... 63

41 Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Mayport, 1978... 64

42 Estimated annual revenue, expense and return statement for port
improvements, five-year projection, Mayport................... 64

43 Total estimated costs of needed port facilities, nine north
Florida ports, 1978............................. .... ... .. 65

44 Estimated revenue from improved facilities, third through fifth
years, nine north Florida ports.............................. 66

45 Summary of annual revenue, expense and return, third through
fifth years, improved facilities in nine north Florida ports... 66

46 Potential fishery resources in the Southeast................... 68

47 Landings and value of selected underutilized resources, 1974... 70

48 Estimated size and initial construction cost of a seafood
industrial port in Florida, 1978............................... 72


viii








LIST OF TABLES (continued)


Table Page

49 Estimated annual revenue for a seafood industrial port
in north Florida, five-year projection...................... 76

50 Pro forma revenue and expense statement for a seafood
industrial port in north Florida, five-year projection........ 77

51 Selected fishing port facility needs in five north Florida
counties...................................................... 173

52 Tidal information for seven port areas in north Florida....... 178

53 Description of offshore fishing grounds in the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico................................................. 180

54 Summary of the recommendations and major considerations for
seafood port improvement in north Florida.................... 219


ix













LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Page

1 Employment and annual payroll in private business,
seven Florida counties, 1975................................. 82

2 Personal income on place-of-work basis, seven Florida
counties, 1975 ............... ...................... ..... ... 84

3 Private nonfarm income by industrial class, seven Florida
counties, 1975..................... ....................... 85

4 Population, Escambia and Bay Counties, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970,
1976, projected 1980, 1990, 2000, and percent change.......... 86

5 Population, Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla Counties, 1940, 1950,
1960, 1970, 1976, projected 1980, 1990, 2000, and percent
change................................................ ........ 86

6 Population, Nassau and Duval Counties, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970,
1976, projected 1980, 1990, 2000, and percent change.......... 87

7 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by
months, Escambia County, 1971-1976........................... 88

8 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months,
Bay County, 1971-1976........................................ 94

9 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months,
Gulf County, 1971-1976.................... ......... ...... 106

10 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months,
Franklin County, 1971-1976................................... 118

11 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months,
Wakulla County, 1971-1976.................................... 124

12 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months,
Nassau County, 1971-1976.................................... 130

13 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months,
Duval County, 1971-1976....................................... 136

14 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish for major north
Florida counties from 1971 to 1976 .......................... 142


x








LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (continued)


Table Page

15 Questionnaires mailed and responses or disposition,
commercial fishermen, all counties and seven major counties.. 148

16 Questionnaires sent, questionnaires returned, and estimated
total number of active commercial fishermen, 23 Coastal
Plains counties, 1977...................................... 149

17 Questionnaires sent and returned by seafood dealers in the
23 Coastal Plains counties, 1977............................. 150

18 Distance from home to fishing port traveled by commercial
fishermen responding in the seven major counties............. 151

19 Distance from fishing port to fishing grounds traveled by
commercial fishermen responding in the seven major counties.. 152

20 Classification of commercial fishermen in the seven major
counties by volume of fish sold in 1976 .................... 153

21 Classification of commercial fishermen in the seven major
counties by volume of shellfish sold in 1976................. 154

22 Factors used in estimating port facility requirements and
capacities .................... ..... .......... ............. 156

23 Vessel numbers and lengths used in estimating facility re-
quirements for ports ........................................ 157

24 Estimated annual revenue and expense for improved port facil-
ities, five-year projection, Pensacola...................... 158

25 Estimated annual revenue and expense for improved port
facilities, five-year projection, Panama City............... 159

26 Estimated annual revenue and expense for improved port
facilities, five-year projection, Port St. Joe............... 160

27 Estimated annual revenue and expense for improved port
facilities, five-year projection, Apalachicola.............. 161

28 Estimated annual revenue and expense for improved port
facilities, five-year projection, Eastpoint.................. 162

29 Estimated annual revenue and expense for improved port
facilities, five-year projection, Carrabelle ............... 166


xi









LIST OF APPENDIX TABLE (continued)


Table Page

30 Estimated annual revenue and expense for improved port~
facilities, five-year projection, Panacea ................... 167

31 Estimated annual revenue and expense for improved port
facilities, five-year projection, Fernandina Beach........... 168

32 Estimated annual revenue and expense for improved port
facilities, five-year projection, Mayport.................... 169

33 Vessel numbers used to develop industrial port costs, 1978... 170

34 Landings volume and distribution as fresh or frozen used to
develop industrial port costs, 1978 ........................ 170


xii












LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1 Florida counties included -in seafood port study. . 4

2 Value of fish and shellfish landed by county in Florida, 1976. 12

3 Annual fish and shellfish landings in Escambia County, 1971-
1976 . . . . . . ... 14

4 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Escambia
County, 1971-1976. . . . . . ... 14

5 Annual fish and shellfish landings in Bay, Gulf, Franklin and
Wakulla Counties, 1971-1976. . . ........ 17

6 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Bay, Gulf,
Franklin and Wakulla Counties, 1971-1976 . . .. 17

7 Annual fish and shellfish landings in Bay County, 1971-1976. 18

8 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Bay County,
1971-1976. . . . . . . ... 18

9 Annual fish and shellfish landings in Gulf County, 1971-1976 20

10 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Gulf County,
1971-1976. . . . . . . ... 20

11 Annual fish and shellfish landings in Franklin County, 1971-
1976 . . . . .. . . . 22

12 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in FrankTin
County, 1971-1976. . . . ... ... 22

13 Annual fish and shellfish landings in Wakulla County, 1971-
1976 . . . . . . . 23

14 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Wakulla
County, 1971-1976. . . . .. 23

15 Annual fish and shellfish landings in Nassau and Duval Coun-
ties, 1971-1976. . . . ... ..... 25

16 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Nassau and
Duval Counties, 1971-1976. . . . . ... 25


xiii








LIST OF FIGURES (continued)


Figure Page

17 Annual fish and shellfish landings in Nassau County, 1971-
1976 . . . . . .. ..... 26

18 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Nassau
County, 1971-1976. ...... . . . . 26

19 Annual fish and shellfish landings in Duval County, 1971-
1976 . . . .. .. . .28

20 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Duval
County, 1971-1976. . . . . ... 28

21 Areas evaluated for fishing port development in North
Florida ....... . . . . 172

22 Physiographic divisions of the Coastal Plain Province for
the panhandle of Florida. . . . .... 176

23 Location of offshore fishing grounds in the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico . . . .. .179

24 Bathymetry and potential port improvement sites for the
Pensacola area. . . . .. .. 186

25 Channel locations, road and rail facilities in the Pensacola
area. . . . . ... ....... 187

26 Aerial view of the Pensacola area. . . ... 188

27 Bathymetry, potential port and port improvement sites in the
Panama City area. . . . . ... .. 191

28 Road and rail facilities in the Panama City area. .... .192

29 Aerial view of the Panama City area. . . ... 192

30 Bathymetry, potential port and port improvement sites in the
Port St. Joe area. . . . . ... 196

31 Channel locations, road and rail facilities in the Port St.
Joe area. . . . . ... . .. 197

32 Aerial view of the Port St. Joe area. . . ... 198

33 Bathymetry, potential port and port improvement sites in the
Apalachicola and Eastpoint areas. . . .. 202


xiv








LIST OF FIGURES (continued)


Figure Page


34 Channel locations, road and rail facilities in the
Apalachicola and Eastpoint areas. . . . ... 203

35 Aerial view of the Apalachicola and Eastpoint areas .... 204

36 Bathymetry and potential port improvement site in the
Carrabelle area . . . ... ..... 208

37 Channel location and roads in the Carrabelle area .... 209

38 Aerial view of Carrabelle. . . . ... 210

39 Bathymetry, potential port and improvement sites in the
Panacea area . . . . ... ...... .213

40 Channel location and roads in the Panacea area ...... 214

41 Aerial view of Panacea . . . .... 215


xv












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Many people are due thanks for their help in the seafood port study
and in preparing this publication and the others in the series. Financial
support from the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation,
Inc., and assistance from its Executive Director, Dr. Roger Anderson, are
much appreciated. The Coastal Plains Regional Development Commission is
the ultimate source of funds partially supporting this study, and Mr.
Stanford Beebe, Program Director for Marine Resources, is to be thanked.
Mr. Bob Jones of the Southeastern Fisheries Association provided
invaluable assistance, for which we are all grateful. The Florida Depart-
ment of Natural Resources was most helpful with a great deal of valuable
information.
Extension Marine Agents Jeffery Fisher and Joseph Halusky were valuable
advisers throughout this project. Ms. Patricia Beville and Mrs. Carol Beran
provided the secretarial and statistical work in an outstanding manner.
Several other career service employees of the Food and Resource Economics
Department spent many hours preparing and mailing questionnaires.
Finally, all the Florida fishermen and seafood dealers who took the
time to complete questionnaires and add comments have our thanks.


xvi












SUMMARY


Commercial fishing is an important industry in north Florida, but port
facilities and services are inadequate in many areas. Modern shore facilities
adapted to an area's needs would improve the seafood industry and provide a
number of benefits.

Commercial fishing activity and facility needs were reviewed for a 23-
county area of north Florida. Seven counties were identified as having
major fishing activity, nine had a intermediate level of fishing, and seven
were minor fishing areas.

This report concentrates on the seven major counties: Escambia, Bay,
Gulf, Franklin, Wakulla, Nassau and Duval. Population and economic activity
were reviewed briefly, along with commercial fishing and port facilities.

Pensacola (Escambia County) and Panama City (Bay County) are rapidly-
growing urban areas with major fishing ports. Gulf (Port St. Joe), Franklin
(Apalachicola, Eastpoint, and Carrabelle) and Wakulla (Panacea) counties have
considerably smaller populations than the two urban counties, with commercial
fishing of relatively greater importance in the counties' economies. Duval
County is a major urban area, and Nassau County population is growing rapidly.

Fifteen north Florida counties had total fish and shellfish landings of
61.3 million pounds with $27.5 million in 1976. This represents over 39
percent of the volume and 31 percent of the value of total Florida landings.

The seven counties studied in detail had 45.2 million pounds of landings
with dockside value of $22.5 million.

Landings in Escambia County are mainly fish, with an increasing trend from
1971 to 1973 and some decline from 1973 to 1976. Shellfish landings, mainly
shrimp, have been fairly stable from 1971 to 1976. October is the peak month
for total landings in Escambia County.

Bay, Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla Counties form a major fishing area.
Total landings of fish and shellfish for the area increased from 1971 to 1976.
May and October are peak months, with January and February recording the lowest
landings in the four-county area.
Landings of fish and shellfish in Nassau and Duval Counties declined
from 1971 to 1976. Major decreases have been in shellfish.

An estimated 1,034 commercial fishing boat owners had 1,610 boats in the
seven county area. Franklin County with 291 had the largest number of com-
mercial boat owners while Gulf County had the fewest with 41.


xvii








Shrimp boats account for about 40 percent of the 1,610 vessels in the
study area, with snapper-grouper boats representing 11 percent, crab boats
6 percent, oyster boats 11 percent, and net and other types 32 percent.

A total of 109 dealers and processors operated in the seven-county area.
Blue crabs and oysters are processed mainly in Franklin and Wakulla Counties,
but very little processing is done with other species or in other counties.

Fish and shellfish are shipped by dealers to the southeastern U.S.,
with some species moving to northeastern markets.

Port facilities and services were grouped into four categories: Hand-
ling and processing, supplies, docking and repair, and retail. Each facility
or service was evaluated in a mail survey by commercial fishermen and dealers.
Personal interviews and port visits provided additional information.

Docking, freezers and cold storage, and repair and supply services were
identified as needing improvement in nearly all counties.

A "package" or set of facilities and services was developed for each
port, based on needs identified by port users. Estimated costs and revenues
were calculated.

Finding of the Remote Sensing Applications Laboratory are also included.
These recommendations for the five northwest Florida counties are based on
interpretation of aerial photographs, satellite imagery, an aerial survey
site visit and published data.

Major needs in Pensacola include docking, ice supply, and net and engine
repair services. Costs for additional docks, an ice plant and gear storage
were estimated at $3,658,600.

Port users in Panama City identified additional docking and gear storage
as primary needs, along with gear repair and a marine railway. Estimated
costs for docks and gear storage were $2,860,000.

Added docking, gear storage, and ice supply, along with gear electronics
and diesel repair were needed in Port St. Joe. Costs for docks, gear storage
and ice plant were calculated at $1,231,500.

Franklin County has three ports, Apalachicola, Eastpoint and Carrabelle.
Facilities and services needed in each differ considerably.

Docks and gear storage, with an estimated cost of $1,107,000, are most
needed in Apalachicola. Additional docks, at a cost of $420,000 are needed
for Eastpoint. Costs of docks, gear storage and an ice plant for Carrabelle
were estimated at $2,824,100.

Panacea in Wakulla County has needs for docking, gear storage and an ice
plant. Costs for these facilities were estimated at $592,000. Also needed in
Panacea were engine repair services and supplies of crab bait.


xviii









Some added dock space and ice capacity were identified needs in Fernandina
Beach. Costs were calculated at $497,500. Gear storage repair and supply
were also needed, according to fishermen.

Dock space, at a cost of $1,870,600, was needed in Mayport, along with
freezer and cold storage capacity, electronics repair and additional boat-
yard capacity.

Estimated annual capital repayment and operating costs were calculated
for each set of port facilities for the first five years of operation.
Expected revenue would exceed $100,000 annually in the third through fifth
years in Pensacola, Panama City, Port St. Joe, Carrabelle and Mayport. Revenue
would exceed operating expense in these ports, but would not repay full
capital cost. Estimated revenues would not cover annual operating costs in
the other four ports.

Growth in commercial fishing in these seven counties will depend on
increased catch of species currently underutilized or unutilized. Several
species of finfish offer considerable potential for development, particularly
in the Gulf.

Preliminary analysis of a single major seafood industrial port was used
to illustrate facilities needed and costs involved in a port to serve 600
vessels landing 30 million pounds. Facilities were of two types those
paid for by public agencies and those built by private firms.

Total initial costs for site preparation, docks and basic buildings,
the facilities provided by public funds were $12,6 million. Estimated costs
for buildings and facilities for private firms was $8.9 million, with an
additional $2.9 million in optional facilities, primarily for processing
operations.

The preliminary analysis showed that such a port is not economically
feasible now. The estimate can serve two purposes, however. The first
is as a starting point for detailed analysis of a major port development,
and the second is for comparison with investments for improvements at
existing ports.

Several public agencies have funds for port development, and can be
contacted through appropriate state agencies.


xix













COMMERCIAL FISHING PORT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH FLORIDA


Kary Mathis, James C. .Cato, Robert L. Degner,
Paul D. Landrum and Fred J. Prochaska

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Commercial fishing and seafood marketing have been important along
the Florida coast for many years. Most seafood landed by commercial
fishermen is distributed from a small number of major ports. The re-
mainder is landed in a larger number of smaller landing places spaced
along the coast. These ports and landing places handle more and larger
vessels than ever before, and move a higher-valued catch through their
facilities each year.
Even though commercial fishing is an important economic sector in
many coastal areas of North Florida, relatively little expansion or
improvement has been made in the shore facilities supporting fishing
in recent years. Port facilities in many areas have deteriorated
over the past two decades, and essential services are not available
in many North Florida counties.
Public docking in North Florida ports is limited. Private seafood
marketing and processing firms own most of the dock, fuel, ice and
other shore facilities used by the commercial fishing fleet. These
facilities are also limited due to the large investment needed for
installation and the high cost of operation and maintenance.
Increased costs for all inputs used in marketing seafood have
restricted expansion by most small firms, although increased retail
prices for seafood have kept these firms economically viable. Recently


Kary Mathis, James C. Cato and Fred J. Prochaska are associate
professors,Robert L. Degner is assistant professor and Paul D. Landrum
is assistant research scientist in food and resource economics, Uni-
versity of Florida.













COMMERCIAL FISHING PORT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH FLORIDA


Kary Mathis, James C. .Cato, Robert L. Degner,
Paul D. Landrum and Fred J. Prochaska

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Commercial fishing and seafood marketing have been important along
the Florida coast for many years. Most seafood landed by commercial
fishermen is distributed from a small number of major ports. The re-
mainder is landed in a larger number of smaller landing places spaced
along the coast. These ports and landing places handle more and larger
vessels than ever before, and move a higher-valued catch through their
facilities each year.
Even though commercial fishing is an important economic sector in
many coastal areas of North Florida, relatively little expansion or
improvement has been made in the shore facilities supporting fishing
in recent years. Port facilities in many areas have deteriorated
over the past two decades, and essential services are not available
in many North Florida counties.
Public docking in North Florida ports is limited. Private seafood
marketing and processing firms own most of the dock, fuel, ice and
other shore facilities used by the commercial fishing fleet. These
facilities are also limited due to the large investment needed for
installation and the high cost of operation and maintenance.
Increased costs for all inputs used in marketing seafood have
restricted expansion by most small firms, although increased retail
prices for seafood have kept these firms economically viable. Recently


Kary Mathis, James C. Cato and Fred J. Prochaska are associate
professors,Robert L. Degner is assistant professor and Paul D. Landrum
is assistant research scientist in food and resource economics, Uni-
versity of Florida.





2


retail seafood prices have increased relative to those of competing
products, which- may affect consumer demand adversely. This would
further restrict expansion and improvement of shore facilities.
Many seafood firms are located in coastal areas considered prime
for general cargo and industrial ports, tourist facilities, housing and
other uses which yield higher economic returns to land owners than do
seafood firms. Owners of waterfront property leased by seafood firms
might wish to change the use of the property, causing the firms and
fishing support facilities to relocate or face sharply increased lease
costs.
Modern seafood ports, with adequate docking and necessary support
services would solve many of these problems for the North Florida sea-
food industry. Consolidating facilities and services would lower
costs and make more efficient use of available land. A modern seafood
port could also provide a concentration point for buyers and sellers,
central waste disposal facilities, and efficient storage facilities for
seasonal products. The fishing industry would, thus, provide higher
quality products and use capital more efficiently.
Modern shore facilities for commercial fishing in a particular area
could be provided as improvement or expansion to an existing port
or as part of a completely new port at a suitable location. Which is
most suitable for a given area must be determined from the type and
needs of the fishing industry in the area, existing and potential fish
and shellfish resources, type and condition of current shore facilities,
economic and social characteristics of the area, and other relevant
factors.


Objectives

The primary objective of this project was to investigate the need
for a modern seafood port in North Florida and/or the needs for improving
existing ports. Specific objectives were to:
1. Determine potential suitable areas for seafood ports.
2. Determine the feasibility of alternative locations.





3


3. Determine the potential economic impact of a seafood port on
areas considered.
4. Determine costs and returns for seafood port operation at various
levels of activity.
5. Identify and describe alternative fund sources for port development
and describe relevant financial factors affecting port funding
and operation.


Sponsor

This study was initiated at the request of the Gulf and South Atlantic
Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. (referred to hereafter as the Found-
ation), who funded the major part of the direct costs of the study. The
Foundation is directed by a Board of Trustees composed of two represent-
atives from the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. The Trustees represent
statewide fishing trade associations or interstate fishery organizations.
Representatives of individual firms or individuals closely identified with
statewide fishery activities participate in the absence of a state organi-
zation. Fourteen trustees currently govern the Foundation. Fiscal support
comes primarily from the Economic Development Administration and the
Coastal Plains Regional Commission. Member organizations and cooperating
state and federal agencies also contribute financial resources and time.

Procedures


This report presents findings meeting the objectives listed earlier,
for a 23-county area of North Floridal (Figure 1). These counties are
part of the region covered by the Coastal Plains Regional Commission,
which has set aside funds for engineering studies of potential seafood
ports in counties in the Coastal Plains development region.



A second phase of the study will survey fishermen and dealers
on port needs in 17 coastal counties of central and south Florida. This
second phase is scheduled to begin July 1 and be completed November 30,
1978.





3


3. Determine the potential economic impact of a seafood port on
areas considered.
4. Determine costs and returns for seafood port operation at various
levels of activity.
5. Identify and describe alternative fund sources for port development
and describe relevant financial factors affecting port funding
and operation.


Sponsor

This study was initiated at the request of the Gulf and South Atlantic
Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. (referred to hereafter as the Found-
ation), who funded the major part of the direct costs of the study. The
Foundation is directed by a Board of Trustees composed of two represent-
atives from the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. The Trustees represent
statewide fishing trade associations or interstate fishery organizations.
Representatives of individual firms or individuals closely identified with
statewide fishery activities participate in the absence of a state organi-
zation. Fourteen trustees currently govern the Foundation. Fiscal support
comes primarily from the Economic Development Administration and the
Coastal Plains Regional Commission. Member organizations and cooperating
state and federal agencies also contribute financial resources and time.

Procedures


This report presents findings meeting the objectives listed earlier,
for a 23-county area of North Floridal (Figure 1). These counties are
part of the region covered by the Coastal Plains Regional Commission,
which has set aside funds for engineering studies of potential seafood
ports in counties in the Coastal Plains development region.



A second phase of the study will survey fishermen and dealers
on port needs in 17 coastal counties of central and south Florida. This
second phase is scheduled to begin July 1 and be completed November 30,
1978.




4


COASTAL COUNTIES IN
COASTAL PLAINS REGION


COUNTIES WITH MAJOR
FISHING ACTIVITY


COUNTIES WITH


INTERMEDIATE
FISHING ACTIVITY

FIGURE I.-- FLORIDA COUNTIES INCLUDED
IN SEAFOOD PORT STUDY.





5


As a part of its continuing efforts to assist development of the
seafood industry, the Coastal Plains Regional Commission has directly
or through state groups funded studies on the feasibility of a seafood
industrial port in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia (Coastal Area
Planning and Development Commission; McKenzie, Liao and Joseph; Silver-
man et al.). These studies analyzed the feasibility of one major
port development in each state. General conclusions were that a major
seafood industrial port was not economically feasible in Virginia and
ports were only marginally feasible in Georgia and South Carolina.
The research reported here was conducted in three stages. The
first stage was a review of published data and previous studies to
identify major physical, technical and economic variables related to
commercial fishing in North Florida. The second stage used a mail
survey to commercial fishermen and seafood dealers in the region to
identify needed facilities and services. After mail survey results were
analyzed, personal interviews were conducted with fishermen, dealers,
suppliers, governmental personnel and others connected with the seafood
industry. The third stage included analysis of interview results,
determination of needed port facilities for each area and economic
analysis of each group of facilities.
From the 23-county area initially considered in this study, seven
counties were identified as major fishing areas. Nine counties were
found to have intermediate levels of fishing activity, and the re-
maining seven were minor fishing areas (Table 1).

Table l.--North Florida coastal counties grouped by level of commercial
fishing activity.

Level of activity
Major Intermediate Minor

Escambia Santa Rosa Walton
Bay Okaloosa Hernando
Gulf Taylor Calhoun
Franklin Dixie Liberty
Wakulla Levy Flagler
Nassau Citrus Jefferson
Duval Clay Washington
Putnam
St. Johns





6


The seven counties identified as major fishing areas, Escambia,
Bay, Gulf, Franklin, Wakulla, Nassau and Duval (Figure 1 ), were studied
in detail through personal interviews, port visits, and specific analysis
of each port in these counties. The nine counties classified as having
intermediate fishing activity (Figure 1) are discussed in a series of
four separate reports (Mathis et al.). These nine counties, Santa Rosa,
Okaloosa, Taylor, Dixie, Levy, Citrus, Clay, Putnam and St. Johns, have
significant seafood landings and numbers of fishermen, but do not have
larger ports and shore facilities. The seven counties with minor fish-
ing activity are not discussed further because so little information is
available.

Escambia County


Pensacola, the county seat and largest city in Escambia County,
is the commercial fishing center in the county, and the largest fishing
port on the northeast Gulf between Mobile and Panama City. Manufactur-
ing, military and government activities, retail trade and construction
are the major economic sectors in this growing urban area (Appendix
Tables 1, 2, 3).
Population in Escambia County grew 10 percent from 1970 to 1976,
and doubled between 1950 and 1976 (Appendix Table 4). County population
is projected to continue increasing, with most growth in the Pensacola
urban area. Escambia County is expected to show an increase of 45 percent
by the year 2000 from 1976 population of 226,000 (Appendix Table 4).
Government employment provides the largest source of income in
Escambia County. Total labor and proprietors' income in the county was
$1,040.9 million in 1975. About 38 percent or $395 million was from
government employment, mostly in federal agencies (Appendix Table 2).
Manufacturing provided $158.2 million in personal income in 1975, just
over half of the government level (Appendix Table 3).
Dockside values of commercial fish and shellfish landings were
$2.3 million in 1975 and $2.7 million in 1976. Commercial fishing is
not identified as a separate sector in reports of income and employment.
However, reliable estimates place the added economic activity generated
by commercial fish and shellfish landings as one-and-a-half times landings
values. That is, for each dollar's worth of fish landed, another $1.50





7


of economic activity results in Escambia County (U.S. Department of
Commerce). This results in a total economic impact of approximately
$5.6 million in 1975 and $6.7 million in 1976. This additional activity,
or multiplier of one-and-a-half times dockside values, does not include
any added economic impact of further processing or retail sales in
Escambia County. Although most fish and shellfish are shipped to other
states, some are sold at retail 'in Pensacola and other local areas. Such
trade generates some additional income that is not included in the
estimates above.

Bay County


Population, the economy and the role of commercial fishing in Bay
County have many similarities to Escambia County. Panama City, another
rapidly-growing urban area, was the main source of a 23 percent increase
in Bay County population from 1970 to 1976. The number of county residents
more than doubled from 1950 to 1976, and is expected to increase by 49
percent by the year 2000 (Appendix Table 4).
Manufacturing and trade generate the largest payrolls and contribute
the most to personal income among private sectors (Appendix Tables 1 and
3). Government provided about 38 percent of the total 1975 labor and
proprietors' income of $293.9 million (Appendix Table 2). Among private
sectors, wholesale and retail trade provided 18 percent and manufacturing
13 percent of county personal income (Appendix Table 3). Tourism is an
important user of wholesale and retail trade and services in Panama City.
Landings in Bay County from commercial fishing were valued at dock-
side at $4.3 million in 1975 and $5.0 million in 1976. The multiplier
for the area is 1.63, or $1.63 added economic activity for each dollar
value of seafood landed. Landings values of $5 million, plus additional
activity of $8.2 million give commercial fishing a total impact of $13.2
million. This value is near the magnitude of personal income from contract
construction or finance, insurance and real estate activities (Appendix
Table 3).





8


Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla Counties

Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla Counties share many characteristics.
These three contiguous counties, along with Bay, comprise the major
commercial fishing area in the Coastal Plains region of Florida.
Commercial fishing is an important economic sector in each of the
three counties.
Franklin County, with 1976 landings valued at $8.3 million, has
by far the largest fishing industry of the three counties. Gulf
County landings were $1.2 million, while Wakulla County had $0.5
million in landings. The Bay County multiplier of 1.63 also applies
in these three counties. Total additional economic activity from
seafood landings in the three counties together was $16.3 million,
making a total impact of $26.3 million.
Manufacturing, primarily forest products, is one of the main
sources of income and employment in all three counties (Appendix
Table 1, 2, 3). This region is not heavily populated. Gulf County
has the largest population, 10,900, followed by Wakulla with 8,700
and Franklin with 7,900 people (Appendix Table 5). Population growth
has been greatest in Wakulla County, with an increase of 38 percent
from 1970 to 1976 (Appendix Table 5). This has been due mainly to
growth in the greater Tallahassee area just north of Wakulla County.
Gulf and Franklin Counties have shown lower percentage increases in
population but have experienced relatively sizable population increases.
Growth rates projected through 2000 are generally similar in all three
counties (Appendix Table 5).

Nassau and Duval Counties


The two most northern counties on Florida's East Coast are part of a
growing urban area. Duval County, with about 580,000 people in 1976,
had a much larger population than the 30,600 in:-Nassau County. However,
Nassau County has experienced a much higher rate of population increase.
Duval County grew 16 percent from 1970 to 1976, while Nassau County
showed a 49 percent increase (Appendix Table 6).





8


Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla Counties

Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla Counties share many characteristics.
These three contiguous counties, along with Bay, comprise the major
commercial fishing area in the Coastal Plains region of Florida.
Commercial fishing is an important economic sector in each of the
three counties.
Franklin County, with 1976 landings valued at $8.3 million, has
by far the largest fishing industry of the three counties. Gulf
County landings were $1.2 million, while Wakulla County had $0.5
million in landings. The Bay County multiplier of 1.63 also applies
in these three counties. Total additional economic activity from
seafood landings in the three counties together was $16.3 million,
making a total impact of $26.3 million.
Manufacturing, primarily forest products, is one of the main
sources of income and employment in all three counties (Appendix
Table 1, 2, 3). This region is not heavily populated. Gulf County
has the largest population, 10,900, followed by Wakulla with 8,700
and Franklin with 7,900 people (Appendix Table 5). Population growth
has been greatest in Wakulla County, with an increase of 38 percent
from 1970 to 1976 (Appendix Table 5). This has been due mainly to
growth in the greater Tallahassee area just north of Wakulla County.
Gulf and Franklin Counties have shown lower percentage increases in
population but have experienced relatively sizable population increases.
Growth rates projected through 2000 are generally similar in all three
counties (Appendix Table 5).

Nassau and Duval Counties


The two most northern counties on Florida's East Coast are part of a
growing urban area. Duval County, with about 580,000 people in 1976,
had a much larger population than the 30,600 in:-Nassau County. However,
Nassau County has experienced a much higher rate of population increase.
Duval County grew 16 percent from 1970 to 1976, while Nassau County
showed a 49 percent increase (Appendix Table 6).





9


Government and manufacturing are by far the major economic sectors
in both counties. All government activities provided 23 percent of
Duval County personal income in 1975 and 28 percent of income in Nassau
County. Manufacturing had an 11 percent share in Duval and 35 percent
in Nassau County (Appendix Tables 2 and 3).
Commercial fish landings in Nassau County, excluding menhaden, had
a dockside value of $1.7 million in 1975 and $1.9 million in 1976. Duval
County landings were $2.2 million in 1975 and $2.5 million in 1976. With
$1.80 in added activity resulting from each dollar of landings, additional
economic impact in the two counties together in 1976 would be about $7.8
million. Total direct and added economic impact was $12.3 million in
1976. As with all these estimates, no additional impact is calculated
from further processing or retail sales in the local area.













CHAPTER II


THE FISHING AND SEAFOOD INDUSTRY

Fishery Resources

Landings of fish and shellfish products in Florida during 1976
totaled 156.4 million pounds valued at $87.9 million at dockside. Fish
accounted for 96.6 million pounds worth $27.5 million while shellfish
landings of 59.8 million pounds were valued at $60.3 million (Table 2).
Thirty-three Florida coastal counties report commercial landings
of fish and shellfish. Several counties report landings jointly which
leaves a total of 31 counties or groups of counties for which commercial
landing activity can be compared. Eleven counties reported landings
with a dockside value in excess of $2 million in 1976 (Table 2 and
Figure 2). Monroe County accounted for 26.9 percent of Florida's total
with $23.6 million. Other counties over $3 million were Lee ($12.7
million) Franklin ($8.3 million), Pinellas ($5.2 million), Bay ($5.0
million) and Hillsborough ($3.1 million). Dade, Escambia, Brevard,
Duval and St. Lucie Counties each had landings valued between $2 and
$3 million. After the leading eleven counties, another seven reported
landings worth between $1 and $2 million (Table 2 and Figure 2). Of the
remaining 13 counties, nine reported dockside values between $0.5 and
$1 million and four had landing values less than $0.5 million.
Counties within the Coastal Plains region (Figure 1) represent 15
of the 31 groups of counties reporting commercial fishing activity. These
15 had total landings of 61.3 million pounds worth $27.5 million in 1976.
This represents 39.2 percent of Florida's landings and 31.3 percent of
dockside value of landings. Fish landings in the Coastal Plains counties
were 35.8 million pounds while shellfish landings were 25.6 million pounds.
Fish and shellfish values were 9.3 and $18.2 million, respectively.
Total landings during 1976 in the seven counties selected for detailed
study were 45.2 million pounds valued at $22.5 million.


10













CHAPTER II


THE FISHING AND SEAFOOD INDUSTRY

Fishery Resources

Landings of fish and shellfish products in Florida during 1976
totaled 156.4 million pounds valued at $87.9 million at dockside. Fish
accounted for 96.6 million pounds worth $27.5 million while shellfish
landings of 59.8 million pounds were valued at $60.3 million (Table 2).
Thirty-three Florida coastal counties report commercial landings
of fish and shellfish. Several counties report landings jointly which
leaves a total of 31 counties or groups of counties for which commercial
landing activity can be compared. Eleven counties reported landings
with a dockside value in excess of $2 million in 1976 (Table 2 and
Figure 2). Monroe County accounted for 26.9 percent of Florida's total
with $23.6 million. Other counties over $3 million were Lee ($12.7
million) Franklin ($8.3 million), Pinellas ($5.2 million), Bay ($5.0
million) and Hillsborough ($3.1 million). Dade, Escambia, Brevard,
Duval and St. Lucie Counties each had landings valued between $2 and
$3 million. After the leading eleven counties, another seven reported
landings worth between $1 and $2 million (Table 2 and Figure 2). Of the
remaining 13 counties, nine reported dockside values between $0.5 and
$1 million and four had landing values less than $0.5 million.
Counties within the Coastal Plains region (Figure 1) represent 15
of the 31 groups of counties reporting commercial fishing activity. These
15 had total landings of 61.3 million pounds worth $27.5 million in 1976.
This represents 39.2 percent of Florida's landings and 31.3 percent of
dockside value of landings. Fish landings in the Coastal Plains counties
were 35.8 million pounds while shellfish landings were 25.6 million pounds.
Fish and shellfish values were 9.3 and $18.2 million, respectively.
Total landings during 1976 in the seven counties selected for detailed
study were 45.2 million pounds valued at $22.5 million.


10





11


Table 2. Value and volume of seafood landings for Florida counties, 1976.


Value Volume
County Fish Shellfish Totald Fish Shellfish Total"

-------1,000 dollars------- --------1,000 pounds------

Monroe 3,641 19,965 23,606 11,922 15,244 27,165
Lee 3,434 9,283 12,718 10,260 5,348 15,608
Franklinb 430 7,837 8,268 1,472 9,679 11,151
Pinellas 2,169 3,070 5,239 5,116 2,591 7,706
BayD 3,247 1,790 5,037 7,050 1,547 8,598
Hillsborough 170 2,933 3,103 544 2,297 2,841
Dade 521 2,464 2,984 776 1,242 2,018
Escambiab 927 1,752 2,679 2,634 1,071 3,705
Brevard 1,120 1,496 2,616 3,153 2,612 5,766
Duvalb 687 1,702 2,389 1,578 1,316 2,893
St. Lucie 2,353 12 2,365 7,178 10 7,188
Nassaub 1,351 298 1,648 4,511 359 4,819
Manatee 471 1,018 1,488 2,360 2,693 5,054
Citrus-Pasco 666 732 1,398 2,639 817 3,456
Collier 661 592 1,254 2,094 566 2,660
Volusia 305 865 1,170 4,212 789 5,001
Gulfb 213 1,733 1,946 9,149 1,831 10,980
Martin 1,013 3 1,017 4,935 2 4,937
Palm Beach 898 61 959 3,089 40 3,129
Indian River 865 15 881 2,667 17 2,684
Charlotte 500 314 813 2,203 703 2,906
Okaloosa 589 213 802 2,206 151 2,178
Dixie-Taylor 225 565 790 1,123 2,548 3,670
Putnam 468 199 667 1,348 1,084 2,432
Levy 113 542 655 721 2,713 3,434
St. Johns 112 497 610 249 314 563
Wakullab 166 342 508 936 2,136 3,071
Sarasota 128 12 141 311 13 324
Santa Rosa 37 9 46 157 21 178
Walton 37 6 43 167 3 165
Broward c 14 14 1 8 9
Total 27,517 60,334 87,854 96,632 59,766 156,398

aTotals may not add due to rounding.

bCounties within Coastal Plains region receiving detailed emphasis in
this report.
CLess than 500 dollars.

Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summary of Florida
Commercial Marine Landings, 1976.





12


Tf =l Over $2,000,000

$ = $1,000,000 to $2,000,000

', = $500,000 to $1,000,000

: = Less than $500,000


Figure 2.--Value of fish and shellfish landings by county in Florida, 1976.





13


This represents 73.7 percent of landings and 82.0 percent of the value
for the Coastal Plains counties.
Detailed data were developed for the seven major counties studied.
Data for important species landed in each county from 1971 through 1976
were analyzed for annual trends as well as seasonal landings patterns.
In addition, overall increases or decreases were identified for inshore
and offshore fish and shellfish landed in each county from 1967 to 1976.

Escambia County


Landings in Escambia County are predominantly fish. Highest annual
landings between 1971 and 1976 occurred in 1973 when 5.6 million pounds
of fish and shellfish were landed. Fish accounted for 4.6 million pounds
of that total (Figure 3 and Appendix Table 7). Annual shellfish landings
have been fairly stable over this period with fish landings increasing
from 1971 to 1973 and then decreasing until 1976.
Average monthly landings show a seasonal pattern with lowest pro-
duction coming between January and March and then steadily increasing
until August (Figure 4 and Appendix Table 14). Both finfish and shellfish
landings decline in September and then rebound to their highestmonthly
point of the year in October at 467,000 and 90,000 pounds, respectively.
Landings then begin their downward trend through the winter months.
Important species in Escambia County are croaker, grouper, black
mullet, red snapper, spotted sea trout and shrimp (Appendix Table 7).
Highest landings usually come from croaker, black mullet, red snapper
and shrimp. Landings of both inshore and offshore fish have generally
increased over the period 1967 to 1975 (Table 3) although 1971 to 1976
landings show a peak in 1973. Both inshore and offshore shellfish land-
ings have decreased over this period.

Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties


Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties are contiguous along the
northwest Florida coast and form the major "area" in which commercial
fishing activity is greatest in the Coastal Plains region of Florida. For
this reason, annual and monthly landing trends were developed for the
four-county area.





13


This represents 73.7 percent of landings and 82.0 percent of the value
for the Coastal Plains counties.
Detailed data were developed for the seven major counties studied.
Data for important species landed in each county from 1971 through 1976
were analyzed for annual trends as well as seasonal landings patterns.
In addition, overall increases or decreases were identified for inshore
and offshore fish and shellfish landed in each county from 1967 to 1976.

Escambia County


Landings in Escambia County are predominantly fish. Highest annual
landings between 1971 and 1976 occurred in 1973 when 5.6 million pounds
of fish and shellfish were landed. Fish accounted for 4.6 million pounds
of that total (Figure 3 and Appendix Table 7). Annual shellfish landings
have been fairly stable over this period with fish landings increasing
from 1971 to 1973 and then decreasing until 1976.
Average monthly landings show a seasonal pattern with lowest pro-
duction coming between January and March and then steadily increasing
until August (Figure 4 and Appendix Table 14). Both finfish and shellfish
landings decline in September and then rebound to their highestmonthly
point of the year in October at 467,000 and 90,000 pounds, respectively.
Landings then begin their downward trend through the winter months.
Important species in Escambia County are croaker, grouper, black
mullet, red snapper, spotted sea trout and shrimp (Appendix Table 7).
Highest landings usually come from croaker, black mullet, red snapper
and shrimp. Landings of both inshore and offshore fish have generally
increased over the period 1967 to 1975 (Table 3) although 1971 to 1976
landings show a peak in 1973. Both inshore and offshore shellfish land-
ings have decreased over this period.

Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties


Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties are contiguous along the
northwest Florida coast and form the major "area" in which commercial
fishing activity is greatest in the Coastal Plains region of Florida. For
this reason, annual and monthly landing trends were developed for the
four-county area.






14


8.0


7.0 -


6.0 Total
0
r 5.0 Shellfish
o

4.0


3.0

Fish
2.0


1.0



1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Figure 3.--Annual fish and shellfish landings in Escambia County, 1971-1976.










900

800

700

= 600 Total

500

400 Shelfish

300 -
0 Fish
200

100


Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Figure 4.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Escambia County,
1971-1976.


_





15


Table 3.--Landings in 1976 and trends from 1967 to 1976 in landings of
inshore and offshore fish and shellfish, seven north Florida
counties.

Fish Shellfish
County Inshore Offshore Inshore Offshore

------------------------ Pounds--------- ----------

Landings, 1976

Escambia 1,465 700 28 1,087

Bay 2,739 2,320 317 1,054
Gulf 3,236 85 40 738
Franklin 1,022 352 4,245 3,033
Wakulla 740 ---- 2,096

7,737 2,757 6,698 4,825

Nassau 78 45 908 918
Duval 637 318 176 1,098

715 363 1,084 2,016
Trends, 1967-1976

Escambia Increase Increase Decrease Decrease

Bay Stable Stable Increase Increase
Gulf Increase Decrease Decrease Increase
Franklin Decrease Decrease Decrease Increasee
Wakulla Increase ---- Increase ---

Nassau Decrease Decrease Stable Decrease
Duval Stable Stable Decrease Decrease

aSpecies included are alewife, black mullet, blue runner, cigarfish,
flounder, king whiting, ladyfish, menhaden (except Nassau County), sea
trout (white), sea trout (spotted), spot, and thread herring. Some of
these fish are caught in offshore waters, particularly in shrimp trawls.
However, these species are caught inshore.
Species included are croaker, grouper, red snapper, and Spanish
mackerel. Some croaker are caught inshore. However, nearly all commercial
landings sold for food are caught offshore.

CSpecies included are blue crabs and oysters.
Includes all species of shrimp.
eNo landings in these categories.
Source: Calculated from Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summary
of Florida Commercial Marine Landings, 1976.





16


Total landings of both fish and shellfish for the area have in-
creased from 1971 to 1976 (Figure 5 and Appendix Tables 8-11). Fish
landings reached a peak of about 15 million pounds in 1973 and have
since been below that level but still remain above 1971 and 1972 landings.
Shellfish landings have shown slightly increasing trends. Landings of
slightly over 11 million pounds occurred in 1971 and 1972. Almost 13
million pounds were reported in 1973 and between 14 and 15 million pounds
were landed from 1974 through 1976. Total landings reached their peak
in 1975 at 29.2 million pounds.
Average monthly landings show a distinct seasonal pattern with peaks
in May and October of 3.1 and 2.9 million pounds, respectively (Figure 6
and Appendix Tables 8-11). Lowest landings, approximately 1.5 million
pounds, occur in January and Feburary. Fish represent the major part
of the seasonal fluctuations.

Bay County.--Landings in Bay County have shown a generally increasing
trend from 1971 to 1976 with some annual fluctuation in fish landings
(Figure 7 and Appendix Table 8). The highest level of total landings
occurred in 1975 at 9.1 million pounds. Fish represented 7.3 million
pounds of this total.
Average monthly landings for Bay County reach their peak at two
different times of the year. Landings are quite low from December through
April, then increase in May about 150 percent due to large fish landings
(Figure 8 and Appendix Table 14). Landings then decline slightly reach-
ing a low between 700 and 800 thousand pounds in August and September.
Another peak occurs in October at slightly over one million pounds.
Landings then decline to their lowest levels during the winter months.
Major food species landed in Bay County are grouper, black mullet,
red snapper, Spanish mackerel, shrimp and oysters (Appendix Table 8).
Highest landings usually consist of black mullet, red snapper, and shrimp.
Bait fish are also important in Bay County, including blue runner, cigar-
fish, thread herring and ladyfish. Bay County landings of bait species
during 1976 were 1.7 million pounds. These fish also account for a sub-
stantial portion of the large seasonal increases in landings that occur
in May and October along with black mullet and red snapper. Both inshore
and offshore fish landings have been fairly stable over the 1967 to 1976
period although some increase is shown from 1971 through 1976 (Table 3).






17




30.0 Total


27.0


24.0

21.0
210 Shellfish

0
18.0 -


15.0


12.0

Fish
9.0


6.0


3.0



1971 1972 1973 1S.4 1975 1976
Year
Figure 5.--Annual fish and shellfish landings in Bay, Gulf, Franklin and
Wakulla Counties, 1971-1976.



3.5



3.0

Total
2.5


S 2.0
o
?- /Shellfish

Z 1.5


1.0 Fish


.5


I I I I I I i I I
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Figure 6.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Bay, Gulf, Franklin,
and Wakulla Counties, 1971-1976.



























































1,100 -

1,000 -


900-


800 -


700 -


600 -


500 -


400 -


300 -

200 -


100 -


10.0-


9.0-


8.0-


7.0-


6.0-


5.0-


4.0-


3.0-


2.0-


1.0-


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976


Figure 7.--Annual fish and shellfish landings in Bay County, 1971-1976.


Total


Fish


(A
0

o
0
0.
C
0


18









Total




Shellfish









Fish


(A
r
-0
C
0
0.
-v
c
(A
0
I-


a I U r


Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July .Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.


Figure 8.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Bay County,
1971-1976.








19


Fish landings in Bay County account for 39 percent of inshore and 85
percent of offshore fish in the four-county area. Inshore shellfish
landings have shown a slight decrease while offshore shellfish landings
have increased from 1967 to 1976. Offshore shellfish landings account
for 22 percent of the four-county total.


Gulf County.--Total landings of fish and shellfish have shown an
overall upward trend in Gulf County from 1971 through 1976 with almost
all the increase in fish landings (Figure 9 and Appendix Table 9).
Years with highest landings were 1973 (5.1 million pounds) and 1976
(5.0 million pounds). Fish accounted for 4.4 and 4.2 million pounds,
respectively for these years.
Average monthlylandings have the same pattern as in adjoining Bay
County. Landings are lowest from December through March and reach peaks
in May, June and October (Figure 10 and Appendix Table 14). The highest
level of landings occurs in October when 654,000 pounds are landed. Fish
represent 586,000 pounds of peak October landings.
Major food species landed in Gulf County are grouper, black mullet,
red snapper, Spanish mackerel, shrimp, and oysters, with black mullet
and shrimp leading. Major landings increases during the last few years
in Gulf County have been in nonfood fish species. Fish landings in 1976
totaled 4.2 million pounds of which 2.7 million pounds consisted of fish
used for non-food purposes such as bait. Major species were blue runner,
menhaden, ladyfish and thread herring. Although menhaden are traditionally
used in meal production, landings along the northwest Florida Coast are
used as bait.
From 1967 to 1976, landings of inshore fish in Gulf County have
shown an overall increase. Gulf County landings of inshore fish accounted
for 42 percent of all inshore fish landings in the four-county area in
1976 (Table 3). Offshore fish landings are relatively unimportant in
Gulf County. Offshore shellfish landings have increased but still comprise
only eight percent of total offshore shellfish landings in the four-county
region.

Franklin County.--Total landings in Franklin County have increased
from 1971 through 1976 with the highest level of landings occurring in





19


Fish landings in Bay County account for 39 percent of inshore and 85
percent of offshore fish in the four-county area. Inshore shellfish
landings have shown a slight decrease while offshore shellfish landings
have increased from 1967 to 1976. Offshore shellfish landings account
for 22 percent of the four-county total.


Gulf County.--Total landings of fish and shellfish have shown an
overall upward trend in Gulf County from 1971 through 1976 with almost
all the increase in fish landings (Figure 9 and Appendix Table 9).
Years with highest landings were 1973 (5.1 million pounds) and 1976
(5.0 million pounds). Fish accounted for 4.4 and 4.2 million pounds,
respectively for these years.
Average monthlylandings have the same pattern as in adjoining Bay
County. Landings are lowest from December through March and reach peaks
in May, June and October (Figure 10 and Appendix Table 14). The highest
level of landings occurs in October when 654,000 pounds are landed. Fish
represent 586,000 pounds of peak October landings.
Major food species landed in Gulf County are grouper, black mullet,
red snapper, Spanish mackerel, shrimp, and oysters, with black mullet
and shrimp leading. Major landings increases during the last few years
in Gulf County have been in nonfood fish species. Fish landings in 1976
totaled 4.2 million pounds of which 2.7 million pounds consisted of fish
used for non-food purposes such as bait. Major species were blue runner,
menhaden, ladyfish and thread herring. Although menhaden are traditionally
used in meal production, landings along the northwest Florida Coast are
used as bait.
From 1967 to 1976, landings of inshore fish in Gulf County have
shown an overall increase. Gulf County landings of inshore fish accounted
for 42 percent of all inshore fish landings in the four-county area in
1976 (Table 3). Offshore fish landings are relatively unimportant in
Gulf County. Offshore shellfish landings have increased but still comprise
only eight percent of total offshore shellfish landings in the four-county
region.

Franklin County.--Total landings in Franklin County have increased
from 1971 through 1976 with the highest level of landings occurring in






20


9.0 -


8.0 -


7.0 -


6.0 -


5.0 -


4.0 -


3.0 -


2.0 -


1.0 -


Total


Fish


1971
1971


1972


Figure 9.--Annual fish and









1,000-

900-

800


700-1


600-

500-

400-

300-

200-

100


1973


1974


1975


1976


Year

shellfish landings in Gulf County, 1971-1976.


Total


Fish


0o


o
0
*r-
C


u,
C
0
0.
C
0
U,
z
0
F-


Jan Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Figure 10.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Gulf County,
1971-1976.





21


1976 at 11.2 million pounds (Figure 11 and Appendix Table 10). This
increase has come from shellfish. Fish landings declined in Franklin
County from 1971 to 1976. Shellfish landings in 1976 amounted to 9.7
million pounds.
Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Franklin County
also demonstrate two seasonal peaks (Figure 12 and Appendix Table 14).
Monthly fish landings are fairly consistent throughout the year with
slight peaks of around 200,000 pounds in June and October. Fish landings
are lowest in February and March. Shellfish landings peak during the
spring months of April and May and again during November. Landings of
shellfish average 908,000 pounds in May and November landings average
659,000 pounds. Lowest landings occur during August at 357,000 pounds.
Major species in Franklin County are grouper, black mullet, red
snapper, shrimp, oysters, and blue crabs, with the latter three being
by far the most important (Appendix Table 10). During 1976, these three
species accounted for 66 percent of total landings. Fish landings also
decreased over the 1967 to 1976 period (Table 3). Inshore and offshore
fish landings in Franklin County each comprise 13 percent of those cate-
gories of landings in the four-county area. Inshore shellfish landings
have decreased while offshore shellfish landings have increased. It is
significant that 63 percent of the four-county area landings of both
inshore and offshore shellfish come from Franklin County.

Wakulla County.--Total landings in Wakulla County have shown some
fluctuation from 1971 to 1976. Landings were slightly less than 5.0
million pounds in 1971 and were between 5.4 and 5.8 million pounds
from 1973 through 1975. Landings were about 3.0 million pounds in 1972
and 1976 (Figure 13 and Appendix Table 11). Most of this variation
comes from shellfish landings which are normally about twice the level
of fish landings.
Average monthlylandings are highest in Wakulla County during June
when the average for 1971 through 1976 was 531,000 pounds (Figure 14
and Appendix Table 14). Total monthly landings are lowest in December
and January at about 270,000 pounds. Landings increase steadily after
January to the June high and then decline with a short peak in October.






22


11.0 -


10.0 -


9.0 -


8..0-


7.0-


6.0 -


5.0 -


4.0-


3.0 -


2.0 -


1.0 -


1971


1972


1973


1974


1975


1976


Year

Figure 11.--Annual fish and shellfish landings in Franklin County, 1971-1976.


1,100-

1,000-

900-


800


700-

600-

500-

400-

300-


200-


100-


Total


Shellfish


R
o


,r-
c
0
0.
C
0


Total
















Shellfish












Fish


i,
0
-0
o

I-


Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.


Figure 12.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Franklin County,
1971-1976.


I _


~- ~ Fish






23


8.0,


7.0


6.0


5.0.


4.0.


3.0


2.0-


1.0-


Total


Shellfish


Fish


1971


1972
1972


1973


1974


1975


1976


Year

Figure 13.--Annual fish and shellfish landings In Wakulla County, 1971-1976.


900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100


Total


Shellfish


-


r-
o

5


U,
C
0
0.
m0
Cl
I,
0


I I I I a I I I I I I I
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Figure 14.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Wakulla County,
1971-1976.


__ I


-Fish "





24


The brief October increase comes from fish landings which are lowest in
February and rise gradually to the October high. Shellfish landings
are normally highest from March through July.
Major species in Wakulla County are grouper, black mullet, red drum,
spotted sea trout and blue crabs. Black mullet and blue crabs are the
most important species with mullet representing 517,000 pounds and blue
crabs 2.1 million pounds of the total 3.1 million pounds of landings
in 1976. Both inshore fish and inshore shellfish have generally increased
in Wakulla County between 1967 and 1976. These categories represent 10
and 31 percent, respectively, of landings in the four-county area (Table
3).

Nassau and Duval Counties

Total landings for the two-county area have declined somewhat from
highs of slightly over 6.0 million pounds in 1971 and 1972. Landings
in 1975 and 1976 were 4.7 and 4.9 million pounds, respectively (Figure
15 and Appendix Tables 12 and 13). Fish landings have shown a slight
decline with the major decreases coming in shellfish.
Average monthly landings demonstrate a seasonal high in October
at 625,000 pounds (Figure 16 and Appendix Table 14). The trend is
generally upward with some monthly fluctuations from the lowest point
of the year in February. Fish landings are normally highest in March
at 281,000 pounds. Landings then decline to an August low and then
peak at a lower level than March again in November. Shellfish landings
are highest from September through November. October landings are
highest at 459,000 pounds.

Nassau County.--Total landings in Nassau County are almost exclusive-
ly shellfish, excluding menhaden. Total landings have declined slightly
with the lowest level recorded in 1973 at 1.5 million pounds (Figure
17 and Appendix Table 12). Landings of menhaden in Nassau County have
ranged between 9.0 and 20.3 million pounds between the years 1971 and
1976, and are utilized primarily by a meal plant in Nassau County. The
remaining fish landings amounted for only 223,000 pounds at the highest
level (1971) during the last six years. Total landings of shellfish
have ranged between 1.4 and 2.0 million pounds with the maximum occurring
in 1971.





24


The brief October increase comes from fish landings which are lowest in
February and rise gradually to the October high. Shellfish landings
are normally highest from March through July.
Major species in Wakulla County are grouper, black mullet, red drum,
spotted sea trout and blue crabs. Black mullet and blue crabs are the
most important species with mullet representing 517,000 pounds and blue
crabs 2.1 million pounds of the total 3.1 million pounds of landings
in 1976. Both inshore fish and inshore shellfish have generally increased
in Wakulla County between 1967 and 1976. These categories represent 10
and 31 percent, respectively, of landings in the four-county area (Table
3).

Nassau and Duval Counties

Total landings for the two-county area have declined somewhat from
highs of slightly over 6.0 million pounds in 1971 and 1972. Landings
in 1975 and 1976 were 4.7 and 4.9 million pounds, respectively (Figure
15 and Appendix Tables 12 and 13). Fish landings have shown a slight
decline with the major decreases coming in shellfish.
Average monthly landings demonstrate a seasonal high in October
at 625,000 pounds (Figure 16 and Appendix Table 14). The trend is
generally upward with some monthly fluctuations from the lowest point
of the year in February. Fish landings are normally highest in March
at 281,000 pounds. Landings then decline to an August low and then
peak at a lower level than March again in November. Shellfish landings
are highest from September through November. October landings are
highest at 459,000 pounds.

Nassau County.--Total landings in Nassau County are almost exclusive-
ly shellfish, excluding menhaden. Total landings have declined slightly
with the lowest level recorded in 1973 at 1.5 million pounds (Figure
17 and Appendix Table 12). Landings of menhaden in Nassau County have
ranged between 9.0 and 20.3 million pounds between the years 1971 and
1976, and are utilized primarily by a meal plant in Nassau County. The
remaining fish landings amounted for only 223,000 pounds at the highest
level (1971) during the last six years. Total landings of shellfish
have ranged between 1.4 and 2.0 million pounds with the maximum occurring
in 1971.






25


Total







Shellfish


Fish


1971


1972


1973


1974


Year
Figure 15.--Annual fish and shellfish landings in Nassau
1971-1976. (Does not include menhaden).


900

800

700


600 -

500

400 -


300 -

200 -

100 -


1975


1976


and Duval Counties,


Fish


8.0


7.0


6.0


5.0


4.0


3.0


U)
-
0
,
C
0
*r
s


2.0


1.0


u)
0

'a
U)
0
I-r


I I I I I I I I I I 1
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Figure 16.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Nassau and Duval
Counties, 1971-1976. (Does not include menhaden).


1 I I -I i I






26


Sh_ Total








Shellfish




ilsh


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
Year
Figure 17.--Annual fish and shellfish landings in Nassau County, 1971-1976. (Does
not include menhaden).


900

800

700

600

500

400


300

200

100


4.0


3.0


r-
0
0


2.0


1.0


U,
in
r
CL
0
C
V,
0
I-


Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Figure 18.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Nassau County,
1971-1976. (Does not include menhaden).


Total

Shellfish

Fish





27


Average monthly landings demonstrate definite seasonal patterns in
shellfish (Figure 18 and Appendix Table 14). Shellfish landings peak
in the summer months of June and July and again at a higher level in
October. From 1971 to 1976, the average October landings of shellfish
have amounted to 241,000 pounds. Fish landings remain fairly constant
at relatively low levels.
Major species in Nassau County, excluding menhaden, are grouper,
king whiting, red snapper, shrimp and blue crabs. Shrimp and blue crabs
comprise the major proportion of the catch (Appendix Table 12). Both
inshore and offshore fish landings have decreased from 1967 to 1976, as
has offshore shellfish. Inshore shellfish, which comprise 66 percent
of the Duval and Nassau catch in this category, have been relatively
stable (Table 3).

Duval County.--Total landings in Duval County gradually declined
from 1971 to 1976. Landings were highest in 1972 and reached a six
year low in 1976 at 2.9 million pounds (Figure 19 and Appendix Table 13).
Fish landings were highest in 1973 at 2.0 million pounds and lowest in
1976 at 1.6 million pounds. Shellfish landings were highest in 1972
at 2.3 million pounds. Since then, shellfish landings have been between
1.3 and 1.7 million pounds.
Average monthly landings are much more erratic and show fewer
distinct peaks than counties along the northwest coast (Figure 20 and
Appendix Table 14). Highest landings occur in March, September, and
November (highest at 382,000 pounds), while lowest landings occur in
February, July, and October. Fish landings show distinct peaks around
March and November when an average of 264,000 and 171,000 pounds are
landed, respectively.
Important species in Duval County are king whiting, mutton snapper,
red snapper, spotted sea trout, shrimp and blue crab. King whiting and
shrimp are the predominant catches. Both inshore and offshore fish
catches have been relatively stable from 1967 to 1976 (Table 3). These
two categories represent 89 and 88 percent, respectively, of two-county
landings of the two categories. Both inshore and offshore shellfish
have shown decreases. Duval-landed inshore shellfish comprise 16
percent and offshore shellfish 54 percent of the total two-county
landings of these categories.






28


8.0


7.0


6.0


5.0


4.0


3.0


2.0


1.0


Total



Shellfish





Fish


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
Year
Figure 19.--Annual fish and shellfish landings in Duval County, 1971-1976.


1,000

900 -

800-

700-

600

500 -

400

300

200 -
1Shellfish
100
Fish

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Year

Figure 20.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish in Duval County,
1971-1976.


0
0


3E
o


IA
V)
C
0
a


o
10
0
i-


I





29


Fishermen and Fishing Craft

Data on the exact number of fishermen and commercial boats and
vessels by county are not available. Consequently, estimates were
made forthe purposes of this study. All individual boat owners in each
county who purchased commercial boat registrations in 1975 were sent
questionnaires (See Appendix B). Adjustments to the boat registration
list were made based on survey responses so that only those boat owners
actively engaged in commercial fishing are reported as fishermen in this
study. These estimates do not include crewmen nor fishermen from other
areas who fish from these counties on a seasonal basis.
A total of 732 fishermen are estimated to be fishing in the five
counties in the northwest Florida study area (Table 4). Franklin County
leads with 291 commercial fishermen while Gulf County is low with
41 fishermen.
Duval and Nassau Counties make up the northeast region with an
estimated total of 302 commercial fishermen. Duval County supports an
estimated 235 fishermen. Total registered boat owners estimated in the
seven county study area number 1,034.
A study by Prochaska and Cato (February 1971) reports an average
of 1.5 boats and vessels per boat owner in Florida. Using this factor
gives an estimated 1,610 boats and vessels having their home ports
located in the study area. Other boats and vessels also operate out
of ports in the area, since some owners have several boats and fishermen
from outside the area fish in the region during seasonal runs. Personal
surveys of the-leading ports were made to provide further information
on characteristics of boats and vessels. The following discussion
reports the results of the survey.
In the northwest area a total of 1,157 boats and vessels fish during
the peak season (Table 4). Over 40 percent (465).of the boats and vessels
in the northwest area fish from the three major ports in Franklin County.
An estimated 297 boats and vessels fish in northeast Florida, for a total
of 1,610 in the entire study area.
Boats and vessels were grouped into five types: shrimp, snapper-
grouper, oyster, crab, and net and other boats. Shrimp vessels account





30


for 40 percent (642 vessels) of the area total (Table 5). The largest
concentration of shrimp vessels is in Franklin County with Carrabelle
being the leading port. Snapper-grouper boats, estimated to number 180,
are concentrated in Pensacola, Panama City and Carrabelle. Oyster boats
are most numerous in Franklin County.

Table 4.--Estimated number of commercial boat owners and vessels using
northwest and northeast Florida ports, 1975.

Area and county Boat owners Vessels

Northwest Florida

Escambia 174 261
Bay 144 216
Gulf 41 60
Franklin 291 465
Wakulla 82 155

Total 732 1,157

Northeast Florida

Nassau 67 101
Duval 235 352

Total 302 453

Total 1,034 1,610


Fishing craft operating from northwest Florida ports vary consider-
ably in length and draft. Shrimp boats range in length from 40 to 100
feet with draft from 6 to 12 feet (Table 5). Snapper-grouper boats
generally range from 40 to 60 feet in length and 4 to 8 feet draft. Crab
and oyster boats are generally from 20 to 27 feet in length and 2 to
3 feet in draft.
Most vessel owners in the seven-county region live near their home
ports. Fishermen in urban counties travel further to their ports than
those in most rural counties. Over 40 percent of fishermen traveled
seven or more miles from their homes to the ports they used in Escambia,
Bay, Nassau and Duval Counties (Appendix Table 18). In two rural
counties, Gulf and Franklin, only 27 percent and 7 percent, respectively,
traveled seven miles or more from home to port. A larger percent of





31


Table 5.--Estimated number of vessels using ports, by type, length and
draft, 1978.

Number using port
County and port Vessel Length Draft during peak season

----- Feet ----


Escambia
Pensacola



Bayn
Panama City


Gulf
Port St. Joe


Franklin
Apalachicola



Eastpoint

Carrabelle


Wakulla
Panacea


Nassau
Fernandina
Beach

Duval
Mayport


Total


Shrimp
Snapper-grouper
Net and other


Shrimp
Snapper-grouper
Net and other


Shrimp
Net and other


Shrimp
Net and other
Oyster

Oyster

Shrimp
Snapper-grouper


Crab
Net and other
Shrimp


Shrimp
Net and other


Shrimp
Snapper-grouper
Net and other

Shrimp
Snapper-grouper
Net and other
Oyster
Crab


40-100
40-60
20-45


40-100
40-60
30-63


6-12
4-8
2-4


6-12
4-8
3-4


161
65
35
261

116
60
40
216


40
20
60


40-100 6-12
30-63 3-4


40-100
20-45
20-25

20-27

20-100
40-60


20-25
20-35
40-50


6-12
2-4
2-3


2-3


6-12
4-6


2-3
2-3
6-12


65
25
80
170
100

170
25
195

100
50
5
155


15
86
101

70
30
252
352
642
180
508
180
100
1 ,610


40-100 6-12
20-50 2-7


40-100
40-60
20-50


6-12
4-8
2-7





32


Wakulla County fishermen traveled further. A total of 45 percent lived
seven miles or more from their port (Appendix Table 18).
The majority of active fishermen responding to the mail survey
fished within 25 miles of their port with a large proportion going less
than ten miles offshore (Appendix Table 19). Over half of the fishermen
responding to the questionnaire from Franklin, Nassau and Duval Counties
fished less than ten miles offshore. Bay County, with 25 percent and
Wakulla County with 29 percent, had the largest proportion of fishermen
going more than 50 miles from port (Appendix Table 19).
These two groups of responses indicate that fishermen prefer to
live near the port used but will travel 25 or even 50 miles from the
port. The distance traveled is, of course, dependent primarily on the
type of fishing. Location of any port facility is clearly important
to both users' homes and to fishing grounds.
Most commercial fishermen responding to the mail survey sold less
than 10,000 pounds of fish during 1976 (Appendix Table 20). However,a
significant proportion, 14 to 23 percent in all counties except Wakulla,
sold over 25,000 pounds of fish.
Fishermen producing shellfish tended to sell larger volumes than
those catching fish. From one-third to one-half of shellfish operators
in Escambia, Franklin, Wakulla and Nassau Counties sold over 25,000
pounds of shellfish (Appendix Table 21). Fishermen responding from
Bay, Gulf and Duval Counties sold smaller quantities of shellfish. From
67 to 73 percent of those fishermen sold less than 10,000 pounds of
shellfish (Appendix Table 21).

Marketing and Processing


A total of 109 fish and shellfish dealers and processors were listed by
the National Marine Fisheries Service in the study area in 1975 (Table 6).
Ninety-two firms were located in northwest Florida with Franklin County
having the greatest number at 50 firms. With the exception of Franklin
and Wakulla Counties, one-half or less of the total number of firms are
considered to be processors. The exceptions are because of considerable
blue crab and oyster processing in Franklin and Wakulla Counties. Very
little other processing takes place in the area. Most shrimp are
shipped in the green headless product form from fish houses to secondary
buyers and fish are generally shipped to fresh fish markets.





33


Table 6.--Number of fish and shellfish dealers and processors by
county, 1975.

Firms processing
Area and county Total firms fishery products

Northwest Florida

Escambia 11 4
Bay 13 7
Gulf 6 4
Franklin 50 47
Wakulla 12 12

Total 92 72

Northeast Florida

Nassau 7 3
Duval 10 3

Total 17 6

Total 109 79


Twenty nine percent of the 109 dealers in the seven major counties
responded to the mail survey. Twenty seven of the 32 respondents were
from the five northwest Florida counties (Table 7). These 27 represented
29 percent of all dealers in the area. Eighteen of the 27 handled fish
and 22 handled shellfish. Fish dealers in the Northwest were almost
equally divided between smaller-volume firms (under 100,000 pounds per
year) and larger firms handling more than 100,000 pounds annually. More
shellfish dealers were in the smaller volume category (Table 7).
Of the five dealers in the two northeastern counties who responded
to the survey, all handled fish with three having over 100,000 pounds
volume. Three shellfish dealers were also in the larger volume class
in Nassau and Duval Counties (Table 7). For the seven-county region
as a whole, 12 of 23 fish dealers and 14 of 26 shellfish dealers handled
under 100,000 pounds.
A limited amount of basic research has been undertaken to describe
and analyze the seafood marketing and processing activities in the study
area. A 1972 study of the Florida shrimp processing industry (Alvarez,
Andrew and Prochaska), concluded that 62 percent of shrimp leaving Florida





34


Table 7.--Classification of dealers responding in seven major counties
by volume of fish and shellfish handled in 1976.

Pounds handled
Fish Shellfish Total
Under Over Under Over dealers
Area 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 responding
------------ -------- Number -----------------------

Northwest Floridaa 10 8 13 9 27

Northeast Floridaa 2 3 1 3 5

Total 12 11 14 12 32


aAreas include counties shown in Table 6.

bRow totals do not correspond to total responses because some
dealers handle both fish and shellfish.


plants goes to foodservice markets with the remaining 38 percent to
retail outlets. Consumption centers for Florida shrimp in the United
States are fairly evenly distributed between the west (30 percent), the
northeast (37 percent), and the southeast (33 percent). The only apparent
difference between marketing in the study area of this report and in
the statewide study is in the amount of processing done by firms in-
cluded. Most shrimp marketing and processing activity in the study area
consists of icing, boxing, freezing, storage, and transportation. Pro-
cessing of breaded and specialty shrimp products is concentrated in the
Tampa and Miami areas.
A 1978 telephone survey with fish handlers (grouper and red snapper)
located in northwest Florida provided information on secondary market
locations, product form, type of buyer and market outlet (Table 8). A
large majority (90 percent) of the grouper are shipped to buyers in the
southeastern United States. Red snapper, on the other hand,appear to
have a wider market with 57 percent of sales by Florida fish dealers
to buyers in the northeastern states, principally New York. Eighty-
three percent of grouper sales and 58 percent of red snapper sales are
made to other wholesalers. Restaurants directly receive seven percent





35


of the groupers sold by area fish dealers. For both species, fresh
iced is the main product form. Ninety-nine percent of grouper and 96
percent of red snapper are sold in this form. Limited processing
facilities are required to handle these species.


Table 8.--Product distribution from coastal fish dealers by market area,
type of buyer and product form, northwest Florida grouper-
snapper industry, 1977.a

Item Grouper Red snapper

------------ Percent -----------------

Market Area

Southeast

Florida 32 13
Alabama 25 13
Georgia 33 13
Total 90 44
Northeast U.S. 10 57

Total 100 100
Type of buyer

Wholesaler 83 58
New York market agent 10 41
Restaurant 7 1


Total 100 100

Product form

Fresh iced 99 96
Fillets 1 O
Frozen whole 0 4

Total 100 100

aBased on a survey of coastal dealers handling 103,718 pounds of
grouper and 1,544,371 pounds of red snapper in 1977.
bIncludes 5 percent shipped to Louisiana buyers.

cLess than one percent.












CHAPTER III


PORT FACILITIES AND SERVICES


Inadequate, deteriorated or unsuited port facilities can seriously
hamper a region's fishing industry and retard or prevent growth. An im-
portant step in identifying fishing port needs in the seven counties
studied was determining facilities available in each port, and how well
those facilities serve the fishing industry. The mail survey described
earlier asked fishermen and dealers to specify which facilities and ser-
vices they used and to evaluate those facilities.
Port services were grouped into four categories shown in Table 9. The
mail survey asked fishermen to indicate which facilities and services they
used in their port and to rate each they used as satisfactory or needing
improvement. Dealers were asked what facilities and services they pro-
vided as well as which they felt needed addition or improvement. These
particular items were then discussed in more detail with industry members
in personal interviews and port visits. Findings discussed below for each
port include both mail survey and personal interview data.


Table 9.--Groups of facilities and services
north Florida survey, 1977.


Handling and processing


Shrimp unloading house
Crab unloading house
Oyster house
Fish house
Processing unused fish
Freezer and cold storage

Supplies

Bait sales
Ice plant
Fuel sales
Groceries


evaluated by port users in


Docking and repair


Docking facilities
Gear storage
Gear repair
Gear supply
Electronics service
Engine repair
Marine railway

Retail

Restaurant
Retail seafood market
Fishermens' meeting room


36





37


Members of the fishing industry identified several major problem
areas. Docking, freezers and cold storage, ice supplies, and repair and
supply services were identified in nearly all counties, along with certain
specific needs in particular ports.
The approach taken in this study was one of developing the "package"
or set of facilities and services'that users of each port identified as
most needed. These are summarized in Table 10. The particular items pre-
sented were developed in light of the needs and conditions in each area.
Many problems or needs were common to all ports but each facility discussed
was adapted to the requirements, physical conditions and particular situ-
ation of each port. Discussion of the "package" for each area follows the
georgaphic order used in preceding chapters.
A special section ending this report summarizes the findings and
recommendations of personnel of the Remote Sensing Applications Laboratory
(RSAL) at the University of Florida. This RSAL report is based on inter-
pretation of aerial photographs and satellite imagery and on information
from a low-level aerial survey, from site visits and published data.
The RSAL report, included in its entirety here, is also published
separately. Recommendations from the RSAL cover the ports in the five
northwest Florida counties. Key points from the RSAL report are noted
in the discussions of each of the northwest Florida port areas in Chapter
III. More detail and aerial photographs and maps of the ports will be
found in the RSAL section.

Escambia County


Current Facilities

Pensacola is the major seafood port in Escambia County and has the
deepest harbor in the northwest region. Fishermen operating out of Pensa-
cola indicated greatest use of fish houses, ice and fuel sales, and docking
(Table 11). Several indicated they would use processing facilities for
undertuilized fish, docking, gear supply and a meeting room if these
facilities were improved or made available.
Of those facilities used by larger number of fishermen, ice supply,
docking, and repair services were most in need of improvement (Table 12).





37


Members of the fishing industry identified several major problem
areas. Docking, freezers and cold storage, ice supplies, and repair and
supply services were identified in nearly all counties, along with certain
specific needs in particular ports.
The approach taken in this study was one of developing the "package"
or set of facilities and services'that users of each port identified as
most needed. These are summarized in Table 10. The particular items pre-
sented were developed in light of the needs and conditions in each area.
Many problems or needs were common to all ports but each facility discussed
was adapted to the requirements, physical conditions and particular situ-
ation of each port. Discussion of the "package" for each area follows the
georgaphic order used in preceding chapters.
A special section ending this report summarizes the findings and
recommendations of personnel of the Remote Sensing Applications Laboratory
(RSAL) at the University of Florida. This RSAL report is based on inter-
pretation of aerial photographs and satellite imagery and on information
from a low-level aerial survey, from site visits and published data.
The RSAL report, included in its entirety here, is also published
separately. Recommendations from the RSAL cover the ports in the five
northwest Florida counties. Key points from the RSAL report are noted
in the discussions of each of the northwest Florida port areas in Chapter
III. More detail and aerial photographs and maps of the ports will be
found in the RSAL section.

Escambia County


Current Facilities

Pensacola is the major seafood port in Escambia County and has the
deepest harbor in the northwest region. Fishermen operating out of Pensa-
cola indicated greatest use of fish houses, ice and fuel sales, and docking
(Table 11). Several indicated they would use processing facilities for
undertuilized fish, docking, gear supply and a meeting room if these
facilities were improved or made available.
Of those facilities used by larger number of fishermen, ice supply,
docking, and repair services were most in need of improvement (Table 12).










Table 10.--Fishing port facility needs in seven north Florida counties, 1978.


Facility County and port
or Escambia Bay Gulf Franklin Wakulla Nassau Duval
service Pensacola Panama Port Apalach- East- Carra- Panacea Fernandina May-
City St. Joe icola point belle Beach port

Freezer x x x

Cold storage x x

Bait supply x

Ice plant x x x x x

Docking x x x x x x x x x

Gear storage x x x x x x x

Gear repair x x x x x

Electronics repair x x x

Diesel repair x x x x

Marine railway x x x

Channel work x x

Breakwater x x


00





39


Table ll.--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Escambia County, 1977.


Facility Currently using Would use

Number. Percent Number Percent

Shrimp house 8 17 2 4
Crab house 2 4 1 2
Oyster house 0 0 0 0
Fish house 34 76 1 2
Processing unused fish 3 6 8 17
Freezer, cold storage 12 26 2 4

Bait supply 12 26 1 2
Ice plant 22 70 1 2
Fuel sales 30 65 2 4
Groceries 10 22 3 6

Docking 24 52 5 11
Gear storage 7 15 0 0
Gear supply 14 30 4 11
Gear repair 10 22 2 4
Electronics repair 15 33 0 0
Diesel repair 17 37 1 2
Marine railway 14 30 2 4

Restaurant 8 17 2 4
Retail seafood market 10 22 1 2
Fishermens' meeting room 5 11 7 15


Total responses


46


46





40


Table 12.--Ratings of seafood port
Escambia County, 1977.


facilities by commercial fishermen in


Fishermen,
Rating Saying needs
facility improvement Share

Number Number Percent
Shrimp house 7 4 57
Crab house 1 0 0
Oyster house 0 0 0
Fish house 34 12 35
Processing unused fish 3 2 67
Freezer, cold storage 11 5 45

Bait supply 11 4 36
Ice plant 32 20 63
Fuel sales 29 10 34
Groceries 8 1 12

Docking 23 12 52
Gear storage 5 3 60
Gear supply 11 6 55
Gear repair 9 6 67
Electronics repair 15 6 40
Diesel repair 17 9- 53
Marine railway 14 10 71

Restaurant 7 1 14
Retail seafood market 9 1 11
Fishermens' meeting room 4 2 50

Total responses 46



For example, 63 percent of 37 fishermen rating ice facilities in the mail
survey said those facilities needed improvement. Personal interviews sub-
stantiated this rating. The existing ice and fuel dock is old and the ice
plant is frequently subject to breakdown. Only two dealers had ice plants,
which they stated were inadequate for their own needs during heavy volume
periods. Ice manufacturing and storage capacity in Pensacola is a serious
limitation to commercial fishermen and dealers.
Lack of docking space is a particularly serious problem in Pensacola.
Over one-half of the fishermen rating docks said improvement was needed.
(Table 12). There are no public docks in the port area. Dealers provide
a total of about 1,500 feet of dock space, mainly for unloading or berthing
their own vessels.





41


Gear storage is a problem to a few fishermen. Three of the five
rating this area said improvement was needed. Only one dealer offered
a substantial amount of gear storage space. Six of the 11 fishermen
rating gear supply service said that area needed improvement. Two gear
supply firms interviewed indicated they stocked a limited assortment of
marine hardware. They did not carry large specialized equipment such as
winches, nets or large shrimp doors.
Electronic firms interviewed offer a wide range of equipment along
with repair and installation. Name brand items offered included VHF and
Citizens Band radios, automatic pilots, fathometers, radars, sonars, and
LORAN receivers. Forty percent of the 15 fishermen rating electronics
service indicated some aspects needed improvement.
The marine railway in Pensacola is a modern facility, able to handle
boats of up to 1,000 tons and 175 feet in length. The boat yard can handle
five boats at a time and offers repair services for wood, steel and fiber-
glass hulls. The boatyard also offers electronics and engine repair and
provides complete machine shop and underwater repair services. However,
this facility was rated by 71 percent of 14 fishermen as needing
improvement. One reason for this rating may be the waiting time necessary
to get a boat into the yard for repairs and the charges necessary for work
done. Many fishermen stated a desire for a public or "rental" marine rail-
way making possible lower cost hull work.
Net repair was another problem area indicated in Escambia County. Nets
must be sent to Mobile, Alabama, or sometimes to Brownsville, Texas for
repair. Engine repair was also felt to need improvement by over half the
fishermen rating that service. This criticism may be directed more at
costs of diesel repair rather than availability of the service.

Needed Facilities

Cost estimates were prepared for improvements in ice making and storage,
fuel and ice docks, unloading and berthing docks, and gear storage space
in the existing port area of Pensacola. It would appear that waterfront
property is available in the municipally owned area near the present cargo
port and fishing docks. Improvement and expansion of shore facilities
support commercial fishing appear to be a logical part of the extensive
redevelopment of that portion of the city of Pensacola. Estimates of





42


construction costs and annual revenue and expensefor fishing port improve-
ments are shown in Table 13.

Table 13.--Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Pensacola, 1978.

Item Description Size Cost per unit Total cost
--------Dollars----------
Docks

Unloading 3740' x 20' 74,800 sq.ft. 22 1,645,600
Fuel and ice 250' x 10' 2,500 sq.ft. 20 50,000
Berthing 8380' x 10' 83,800 sq.ft. 20 1,676,000
Total docks 3,371,600
Buildings

Ice plant

Manufacturing 60 tons/day (watercooled) 123,000
Storage 150 tons 34,000
Total ice plant 157,000

Gear storage 2 buildings (40'x125') 10,000 sq.ft. 13 130,000

Total buildings 287,000

Total 3,658,600

(See Appendix C, Appendix Tables 22 and 23, for factors used in estimat-
ing facility requirements).
No estimates were prepared for added freezer capacity or gear repair
and supply. Existing freezer capacity owned by dealers or available to
the fishing industry is often inadequate. However, dealers and fishermen
in Pensacola felt that new freezer facilities could not be justified for
seafood and bait alone. This need, along with general freezer requirements,
would determine if added commercial freezer space were economically justi-
fied. Private firms considering entering or adding to gear repair and
supply business would also need to evaluate those needs. The facilities
included in Table 13 are those appropriate for public investment or of
general and pressing need for the whole fishing industry in Pensacola.
Most of the costs estimated for needed facilities are for docking.
Docks and gear storage space, and possibly an ice plant, could be built with
public funds from loans, grants or revenue bonds.





43


Estimated revenues from space rental for docks and gear storage were
calculated along with a per unit revenue from fuel and ice sales. Operating
expenses and capital costs were also calculated (Appendix Table 24.) It
is estimated that total use the first year would be at.60 percent of capac-
ity, with the second year at 80 percent capacity. Subsequent years are
calculated at 100 percent of capacity use. "Capacity", however, is based
on the number of vessels and pounds of landings currently in the port, and
fuel and ice sales generated by that current level of activity. Factors
used in these calculations are shown in Appendix Tables 22 and 23.
Projections of revenues, expenses and returns for the first five years
of operation with improved facilities are shown in Table 14. It is assumed
that revenues and expenses for the third, fourth and fifth years would be
the same. Total capital recovery charges for construction would not be
repaid by estimated revenues from space rentals and fuel and ice sales
(Table 14). This is true for all facilities in each of the ports discussed.
Financing arrangements and fund sources for improvements would need to be
determined by concerned parties in each of the areas covered. Possible fund
sources are discussed briefly in Chapter V of this report.

Table 14.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improvements,
five-year projection, Pensacola.

Year
Item 1 2 3-5
- - Dollars - - - -
Total revenue 150,976 201,301 251,626

Total expense 588,698 607,098 625,498

Return (loss)
Over expense 50,043 81,968 113,893

Total (437,722) (405,797) (373,872)


Bay County


Current Facilities


Fishermen in Panama City use shrimp and fish houses, bait, ice, fuel
and grocery sales, docking and supply and repair services heavily (Table 15).





43


Estimated revenues from space rental for docks and gear storage were
calculated along with a per unit revenue from fuel and ice sales. Operating
expenses and capital costs were also calculated (Appendix Table 24.) It
is estimated that total use the first year would be at.60 percent of capac-
ity, with the second year at 80 percent capacity. Subsequent years are
calculated at 100 percent of capacity use. "Capacity", however, is based
on the number of vessels and pounds of landings currently in the port, and
fuel and ice sales generated by that current level of activity. Factors
used in these calculations are shown in Appendix Tables 22 and 23.
Projections of revenues, expenses and returns for the first five years
of operation with improved facilities are shown in Table 14. It is assumed
that revenues and expenses for the third, fourth and fifth years would be
the same. Total capital recovery charges for construction would not be
repaid by estimated revenues from space rentals and fuel and ice sales
(Table 14). This is true for all facilities in each of the ports discussed.
Financing arrangements and fund sources for improvements would need to be
determined by concerned parties in each of the areas covered. Possible fund
sources are discussed briefly in Chapter V of this report.

Table 14.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improvements,
five-year projection, Pensacola.

Year
Item 1 2 3-5
- - Dollars - - - -
Total revenue 150,976 201,301 251,626

Total expense 588,698 607,098 625,498

Return (loss)
Over expense 50,043 81,968 113,893

Total (437,722) (405,797) (373,872)


Bay County


Current Facilities


Fishermen in Panama City use shrimp and fish houses, bait, ice, fuel
and grocery sales, docking and supply and repair services heavily (Table 15).





44


Table 15.--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Bay County, 1977.

Fishermen
Facility Currently using Would use

Number Percent Number Percent
Shrimp house 14 30 1 2
Crab house 0 0 2 4
Oyster house 5 11 4 8
Fish house 28 60 2 4
Processing unused fish 3 6 7 15
Freezer, cold storage 8 17 1 2

Bait supply 13 28 3 6
Ice plant 30 64 3 6
Fuel sales 32 68 2 4
Groceries 22 47 0 0

Docking 23 50 4 8
Gear storage 3 6 2 4
Gear supply 13 28 6 13
Gear repair 10 21 5 11
Electronics repair 16 34 0 0
Diesel repair 18 38 3 6
Marine railway 16 34 0 0

Restaurant 8 17 1 2
Retail seafood market 16 34 1 2
Fishermens' meeting room 6 13 3 6

Total responses 47 -



Fifteen percent of fishermen responding in the mail survey would use pro-
cessing facilities for underutilized fish if they were available. Thirteen
percent would use gear repair and 11 percent would use gear supply if
those facilities were available or improved.
Panama City has large freezing and cold storage facilities. Total
freezer capacity is 132,000 pounds per 24 hour period and storage for frozen
product is approximately 2,350,000 pounds per cold storage volume for pro-
duct held above freezing is about 30,000 pounds.
Ice-making and storage capacity in Panama City is also quite substan-
tial. Dealers can provide 107 tons of ice daily and can store 372 tons.
Physical capacity is not limiting but 44 percent of 27 fishermen indicated
ice supply as a problem area. This rating could be due partly to the un-
usually hot summer of 1977 shortly before the mail questionnaires were sent.





45


Facilities and services receiving the greatest percentage of "need
improvement" ratings from larger numbers of fishermen were docking and
marine railway (Table 16). Fifty-three percent of 15 active commercial
fishermen rated docking as needing improvement. Panama City docks open
to commercial fishermen are nearly all public with total space of about
900 feet. This amount is less than adequate to handle the number of boats
landing fish and shellfish in Panama City. Use of some of this docking
area is also restricted by the weather at times. Alternative sites for
additional docks are discussed in the RSAL report.
Gear repair needs were also reported by mail survey respondents.
Marine railway and gear repair were not included in cost estimates since
they are activities private firms would likely provide if opportunity were
sufficient.
Cost estimates for Bay County additions and improvements are shown
for docking and gear storage (Table 17). Revenues from improved facilities
would provide a sizable annual income, exceeding $272,000 in the third year
of operation. Expenses are estimated to reach a total of more than $497,000
by the third year (Appendix Table 25). Estimated revenues would more than
cover all expenses except capital charges as in Pensacola (Table 18).

Gulf County

Current Facilities

A relatively small number of Gulf County fishermen responded to the
mail survey. Only 12 of the estimated 41 in the county returned question-
naires. The largest number of fishermen used dock facilities (Table 19).
Of those rating docks, 86 percent said improvement was needed (Table 20).
Dock space is limited in Port St. Joe where about 1,800 feet are now avail-
able.
Large numbers of fishermen did not indicate needs for repair services
in the mail survey (Table 20). However, personal interviews indicated that
considerable improvement was needed. There are none or very limited services
for gear, electronics and diesel repair, nor for repairs needing a marine
railway. Gear storage is also a serious deficiency since fishing vessels
require considerable storage space for nets and other gear. A large pro-
portion of vessels using Port St. Joe are fishing boats (Table 5).





45


Facilities and services receiving the greatest percentage of "need
improvement" ratings from larger numbers of fishermen were docking and
marine railway (Table 16). Fifty-three percent of 15 active commercial
fishermen rated docking as needing improvement. Panama City docks open
to commercial fishermen are nearly all public with total space of about
900 feet. This amount is less than adequate to handle the number of boats
landing fish and shellfish in Panama City. Use of some of this docking
area is also restricted by the weather at times. Alternative sites for
additional docks are discussed in the RSAL report.
Gear repair needs were also reported by mail survey respondents.
Marine railway and gear repair were not included in cost estimates since
they are activities private firms would likely provide if opportunity were
sufficient.
Cost estimates for Bay County additions and improvements are shown
for docking and gear storage (Table 17). Revenues from improved facilities
would provide a sizable annual income, exceeding $272,000 in the third year
of operation. Expenses are estimated to reach a total of more than $497,000
by the third year (Appendix Table 25). Estimated revenues would more than
cover all expenses except capital charges as in Pensacola (Table 18).

Gulf County

Current Facilities

A relatively small number of Gulf County fishermen responded to the
mail survey. Only 12 of the estimated 41 in the county returned question-
naires. The largest number of fishermen used dock facilities (Table 19).
Of those rating docks, 86 percent said improvement was needed (Table 20).
Dock space is limited in Port St. Joe where about 1,800 feet are now avail-
able.
Large numbers of fishermen did not indicate needs for repair services
in the mail survey (Table 20). However, personal interviews indicated that
considerable improvement was needed. There are none or very limited services
for gear, electronics and diesel repair, nor for repairs needing a marine
railway. Gear storage is also a serious deficiency since fishing vessels
require considerable storage space for nets and other gear. A large pro-
portion of vessels using Port St. Joe are fishing boats (Table 5).






46


Table 16.--Ratings of seafood port facilities
Bay County, 1977.


by commercial fishermen in


Fishermen
Facility Rating facility Saying needs Share
improvement
Number Number Percent
Shrimp house 12 5 42
Crab house 0 0 0
Oyster house 4 2 50
Fish house 25. 9 36
Processing unused fish 8 5 67
Freezer, cold storage 6 2 33
Bait supply 11 2 18
Ice plant 27 12 44
Fuel sales 25 10 40
Groceries 16 2 12
Docking 15 8 53
Gear storage 3 1 33
Gear supply 12 4 33
Gear repair 9 4 44
Electronics repair 13 3 23
Diesel repair 14 4 29
Marine railway 13 7 54
Restaurant 7 2 29
Retail seafood market 12 2 17
Fishermens' meeting room 5 3 60
Total responses 47 -


Table 17.--Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Panar,a City,
1978.

Total
Description Size Cost per unit Cost
----Feet-- Square feet ----Dollars-------
Docks
Unloading 3000 X 20 60,000 22 1,320,000
Berthing 7050 X 10 70,500 20 1,410,000

Total docks 2,730,000

Buildings
Gear storage
2 buildings 40 X 125 10,000 13 130,000

Total 2,860,000


(See Appendix C, Appendix tables
facility requirements.)


22 and 23, for factors used in estimating


Table 18.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for
e vif year projection Panama C .


port improvements,


Year
Items 1 2 3-5
--------------Dollars-----------
Total revenue 163,511 218,015 272,519
Total expense 465,345 481,445 497,545

Return (loss)
nver expenses 79,461 117,865 156,269
Total (301,834) (263,430) (225,026)






47


Table 19.--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by fish-
ermen in Gulf County, 1977.

Fishermen
Facility Currently using Would use

Number Percent Number Percent
Shrimp house 5 42 1 8
Crab house 0 0 1 8
Oyster house 1 8 1 8
Fish house 3 25 1 8
Processing unused fish 1 8 3 25
Freezer, cold storage 1 8 3 25
Bait supply 2 17 2 17
Ice plant 3 25 3 25
Fuel sales 6 50 2 17
Groceries 2 17 1 8.

Docking 7 58 0 0
Gear storage 2 17 3 25
Gear supply 1 8 3 25
Gear repair 2 17 3 25
Electronics repair 2 17 3 25
Diesel repair 2 17 3 25
Marine railway 2 17 3 25

Restaurant 0 0 2 17
Retail seafood market 1 8 3 25
Fishermens' meeting room 1 8 2 17

Total responses 12 12 -





Table 20.--Ratings of seafood port facilities by fishermen in Gulf
County, 1977.

Fishermen
Facility Rating Saying needs improvement Share
Number Number Percent
Shrimp house 5 3 60
Crab house 0 0 0
Oyster house 1 0 0
Fish house 3 2 67
Processing unused fish 1 1 100
Freezer, cold storage 1 0 0

Bait supply 2 0 0
Ice plant 3 3 100
Fuel sales 6 2 33
Groceries 2 0 0

Docking 7 6 86
Gear storage 2 2 100
Gear supply 1 1 100
Gear repair 2 2 100
Electronics repair 2 2 100
Diesel repair 2 2 100
Marine railway 2 2 100

Restaurant 0 0 0
Retail seafood market 1 1 100
Fishermens' meeting room 1 1 100

Total responses 12 -





48


Needed Facilities


Additional docks were the greatest need reported in Port St. Joe with
an ice plant and gear storage also rated as important (Table 21). Avail-
able locations for docks and large port development possibilities are dis-
cussed in the RSAL report. Revenue from fuel sales would be the largest
revenue category (Appendix Table 26) with total annual revenue in years
three through five falling about $70,000 short of total expenses (Table 22).


Table 21.--Port facilities needed for
1978.


commercial fishing, Port St. Joe,


Item


Docks
Unloading
Fuel & ice
Berthing


Description
Feet

1175x20
250x10
2100x10


Size
Square feet

23,500
2,500
21,000


Cost per


Cost per
unit Total cost
.--- Dollars ---,-


22
20
20


Total docks


517,000
50,000
420,000

987,000


Buildings
Ice plant
Manufacturing
Storage
Total ice plants

Gear storage
Total buildings


30 tons/day
75 tons


12,500


Total


65,000
17,000
82,000

13 162,500
244,500

1,231,500


(See Appendix C, Appendix
facility requirements).


Tables 22 and 23, for factors used


in estimating


All repair and supply facilities were listed as needed in Port St.
Joe. However, these should be expected to be provided by private firms.
Current numbers of boats and likely volume of business may not be large
enough to attract additional repair or supply firms. However, a branch or
part-time outlet for some services might be viable and would provide much-
needed facilities for Gulf County fishermen.





49


Table 22.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Port St. Joe.

Total
Items 1 2 .3-5
----------------Dollars-------------

Total revenue 80,621 107,494 134,368

Total expense 193,378 197,978 202,578

Return (loss)
Over expenses 51,427 73,700 95,974

Total (112,757) (90,484) (68,210)



Franklin County

Franklin County differs from the other six counties in this study by
having three major ports. Apalachicola, Eastpoint and Carrabelle are all
important landing areas with each landing a different combination of fish
and shellfish. Apalachicola handles primarily shrimp and oysters, East-
point almost exclusively oysters, and Carrabelle mainly shrimp and fish.

Current Facilities


A total of 62 fishermen reported using the shore facilities in Frank-
lin County (Table 23). Equal numbers used shrimp, oysters and fish houses,
with about one-third in each case saying some improvements were needed
(Table 24). These mail survey ratings and personal interviews in all three
ports led to the judgment that there were no serious problems in handling
and processing or supply facilities.
Docking and repair needs were substantial, however (Table 24). Of the
29 fishermen rating docks in the mail survey, 48 percent felt improvements
were needed. These needs were most critical in Apalachicola and Carrabelle.
Eastpoint, handling mostly oyster boats, has less need for dock space.
Docks and unloading areas in Eastpoint are exposed to wind and wave action
and many users said a breakwater or some protection was needed.





49


Table 22.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Port St. Joe.

Total
Items 1 2 .3-5
----------------Dollars-------------

Total revenue 80,621 107,494 134,368

Total expense 193,378 197,978 202,578

Return (loss)
Over expenses 51,427 73,700 95,974

Total (112,757) (90,484) (68,210)



Franklin County

Franklin County differs from the other six counties in this study by
having three major ports. Apalachicola, Eastpoint and Carrabelle are all
important landing areas with each landing a different combination of fish
and shellfish. Apalachicola handles primarily shrimp and oysters, East-
point almost exclusively oysters, and Carrabelle mainly shrimp and fish.

Current Facilities


A total of 62 fishermen reported using the shore facilities in Frank-
lin County (Table 23). Equal numbers used shrimp, oysters and fish houses,
with about one-third in each case saying some improvements were needed
(Table 24). These mail survey ratings and personal interviews in all three
ports led to the judgment that there were no serious problems in handling
and processing or supply facilities.
Docking and repair needs were substantial, however (Table 24). Of the
29 fishermen rating docks in the mail survey, 48 percent felt improvements
were needed. These needs were most critical in Apalachicola and Carrabelle.
Eastpoint, handling mostly oyster boats, has less need for dock space.
Docks and unloading areas in Eastpoint are exposed to wind and wave action
and many users said a breakwater or some protection was needed.





50


Table 23.--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Franklin County, 1977.


Fishermen
Facility Currently using Would use

Number Percent Number Percent
Shrimp house 28 45 0 0
Crab house 7 11 1 2
Oyster house 28 45 0 0
Fish house 28 45 1 2
Processing unused fish 2 3 7 11
Freezer, cold storage 12 19 6 10

Bait supply 7 11 3 5
Ice plant 32 52 6 10
Fuel sales 34 55 1 2
Groceries 23 37 2 3

Docking 29 47 6 10
Gear storage 6 10 4 6
Gear supply 16 26 5 8
Gear repair 9 14 5 8
Electronics repair 10 16 6 10
Diesel repair 17 27 6 10
Marine railway 14 23 7 11

Restaurant 11 18 4 6
Retail seafood market 11 18 3 5
Fishermens' meeting room 3 5 10 16

Total responses 62 -- --





51

Table 24.--Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen in
Franklin County, 1977.

Fishermen
Facility Rating Saying needs improvement Share
Number -Number Percent

Shrimp house 27 9 33
Crab house 5' 2 40
Oyster house 27 9 33
Fish house 24 9 37
Processing unused fish 2 1 50
Freezer, cold storage 12 5 42

Bait supply 6 1 17
Ice plant 30 13 43
Fuel sales 31 10 32
Groceries 20 7 35

Docking 29 14 48
Gear storage 6 5 83
Gear supply 16 10 63
Gear repair 8 4 50
Electronics repair 10 6 60
Diesel repair 17 11 65
Marine railway 13 8 62

Restaurant 10 3 30
Retail seafood market 11 2 18
Fishermens' meeting room 3 3 100

Total responses 62 -



Seafood dealers in Apalachicola own most of the 1,800 feet of available
dock space there. The same situation exists in Carrabelle where about 1,000
feet are available. There is a small public dock in Apalachicola but the
basin is shallow and narrow and facilities are in poor condition.
Gear storage space is very limited in all Franklin County ports and
gear supply and repair facilities are in need of improvement (Table 24).
Electronics, diesel and boat repair services were also less than adequate.

Needed Facilities


Apalachicola

Docking and gear storage are the primary needs for improving shore
facilities in Apalachicola (Table 25). Revenues from dock and gear storage





51

Table 24.--Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen in
Franklin County, 1977.

Fishermen
Facility Rating Saying needs improvement Share
Number -Number Percent

Shrimp house 27 9 33
Crab house 5' 2 40
Oyster house 27 9 33
Fish house 24 9 37
Processing unused fish 2 1 50
Freezer, cold storage 12 5 42

Bait supply 6 1 17
Ice plant 30 13 43
Fuel sales 31 10 32
Groceries 20 7 35

Docking 29 14 48
Gear storage 6 5 83
Gear supply 16 10 63
Gear repair 8 4 50
Electronics repair 10 6 60
Diesel repair 17 11 65
Marine railway 13 8 62

Restaurant 10 3 30
Retail seafood market 11 2 18
Fishermens' meeting room 3 3 100

Total responses 62 -



Seafood dealers in Apalachicola own most of the 1,800 feet of available
dock space there. The same situation exists in Carrabelle where about 1,000
feet are available. There is a small public dock in Apalachicola but the
basin is shallow and narrow and facilities are in poor condition.
Gear storage space is very limited in all Franklin County ports and
gear supply and repair facilities are in need of improvement (Table 24).
Electronics, diesel and boat repair services were also less than adequate.

Needed Facilities


Apalachicola

Docking and gear storage are the primary needs for improving shore
facilities in Apalachicola (Table 25). Revenues from dock and gear storage





52


rental (Appendix Table 27) would cover most of the operating costs, exclud-
ing capital charge, for these facilities (Table 26).

Table 25.--Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Apalachicola,
1978.

Cost per Total
Item Description Size unit cost
Feet Square feet ---Dollars----
Docks
Unloading 1,200x20 24,000 22 528,000
Berthing 2,310x10 23,100 20 462,000
Total docks 990,000
Buildings
Gear storage 9,000 13 117,000
Total buildings 117,000
Total 1,107,000

(See Appendix C, Appendix Tables 22 and 23, for factors used in estimating
facility requirements).


Table 26.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return, for port improve-
ments, five year projection, Apalachicola.

Year
Items 1 2 3-5
--------------Dollars-------------------

Total revenue 33,831 45,108 56,385

Total expense 194,543 205,583 216,623

Return (Loss)
Over expense (13,127) (12,890) (12,653)

Total (160,712) (160,475) (160,238)



A major need in Apalachicola is dredging and maintenance of the channel
used by fishing vessels. Additional dock space would likely require more
dredging to provide a basin and dock area. Costs of these major improvements
were not estimated since engineering studies of this work had been completed





53


and provided to local government bodies. Other sites and development
possibilities are discussed in the RSAL report. Other needs may be filled
by a local firm which began remodeling existing boat yard and repair
facilities in the fall of 1977. This firm plans to provide all maintenance
and repair services, as well as fuel and ice, and plans to freeze and pro-
cess seafood. Many of the serious needs indicated by Franklin County
fishermen in the mail survey and personal interviews will, no doubt, be
provided by this firm as it reaches full operation.

Eastpoint


Oysters are the primary seafood product landed in Eastpoint. Oyster
boats do not require nearly the amount of dock space nor shore facilities
as shrimp or fishing boats. Only dock costs and rentals are estimated for
Eastpoint (Table 27 and Appendix Table 28). Dock rental would provide about
a fourth of the estimated total annual expense (Table 28). Along with docks,
Eastpoint fishermen and dealers emphasized the need for a breakwater or some
form of protection from wind and wave action for shore facilities.

Table 27.--Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Eastpoint, 1978.

Item Description Size Cost per unit Total cost

Feet Square feet ---------- Dollars --------
Docks
Unloading 750 X 20 15,000 22 330,000
Berthing 450 X 10 4,500 20 90,000
Total 19,500 420,000

(See Appendix C, Appendix tables 22 and 23, for factors used in estimating
facility requirements).

Carrabelle

Sizeable investments would be required for facilities needed in
Carrabelle (Table 29). As with other areas, the major part of estimated
costs is for additional docks. Revenues would be sizeable (Appendix Table
29) but would not repay total costs (Table 30). All supply and repair





53


and provided to local government bodies. Other sites and development
possibilities are discussed in the RSAL report. Other needs may be filled
by a local firm which began remodeling existing boat yard and repair
facilities in the fall of 1977. This firm plans to provide all maintenance
and repair services, as well as fuel and ice, and plans to freeze and pro-
cess seafood. Many of the serious needs indicated by Franklin County
fishermen in the mail survey and personal interviews will, no doubt, be
provided by this firm as it reaches full operation.

Eastpoint


Oysters are the primary seafood product landed in Eastpoint. Oyster
boats do not require nearly the amount of dock space nor shore facilities
as shrimp or fishing boats. Only dock costs and rentals are estimated for
Eastpoint (Table 27 and Appendix Table 28). Dock rental would provide about
a fourth of the estimated total annual expense (Table 28). Along with docks,
Eastpoint fishermen and dealers emphasized the need for a breakwater or some
form of protection from wind and wave action for shore facilities.

Table 27.--Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Eastpoint, 1978.

Item Description Size Cost per unit Total cost

Feet Square feet ---------- Dollars --------
Docks
Unloading 750 X 20 15,000 22 330,000
Berthing 450 X 10 4,500 20 90,000
Total 19,500 420,000

(See Appendix C, Appendix tables 22 and 23, for factors used in estimating
facility requirements).

Carrabelle

Sizeable investments would be required for facilities needed in
Carrabelle (Table 29). As with other areas, the major part of estimated
costs is for additional docks. Revenues would be sizeable (Appendix Table
29) but would not repay total costs (Table 30). All supply and repair





54


Table 28.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port invest-
ments, five-year projections, Eastpoint.

Year
Item r 2 3-5
------------------ Dollars --------------
Total revenue '11,747 15,660 19,575
Total expenses 78,494 84,244 89,994
Return (loss) over expense (10,755) (12,590) (14,425)
Total (66,749) (68,584) (70,419)

facilities were reported as needed in Carrabelle (Table 10). Gear
supply and electronics firms began operating there early in 1978 which may
satisfy some of these needs.

Wakulla County

Current Facilities

Panacea is. the port used by most Wakulla County fishermen though several
land in St. Marks or Alligator Point and others use Franklin County ports.
Twenty-three fishermen returned questionnaires with a sizeable number using
shirmp and fish houses, ice and fuel sales, and docking and engine repair
(Table 31). Facilities rated by one-third or more of the respondents as
needing improvement were ice supplies, docking and engine repair (Table 32).
Personal interviews revealed that adequate supplies of fish scrap were
not available in Panacea for use as crab bait. The long winding, shallow
channel from the Gulf into Panacea is a major problem for many fishermen
(Table 10). Dredging would be prohibitive, however, so costs were not
estimated nor included in this report. See the RSAL report for additional
discussion of these points.

Needed Facilities

Total facility costs for Panacea are substantially smaller than for
other ports discussed. While dock space is needed and represents most of





54


Table 28.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port invest-
ments, five-year projections, Eastpoint.

Year
Item r 2 3-5
------------------ Dollars --------------
Total revenue '11,747 15,660 19,575
Total expenses 78,494 84,244 89,994
Return (loss) over expense (10,755) (12,590) (14,425)
Total (66,749) (68,584) (70,419)

facilities were reported as needed in Carrabelle (Table 10). Gear
supply and electronics firms began operating there early in 1978 which may
satisfy some of these needs.

Wakulla County

Current Facilities

Panacea is. the port used by most Wakulla County fishermen though several
land in St. Marks or Alligator Point and others use Franklin County ports.
Twenty-three fishermen returned questionnaires with a sizeable number using
shirmp and fish houses, ice and fuel sales, and docking and engine repair
(Table 31). Facilities rated by one-third or more of the respondents as
needing improvement were ice supplies, docking and engine repair (Table 32).
Personal interviews revealed that adequate supplies of fish scrap were
not available in Panacea for use as crab bait. The long winding, shallow
channel from the Gulf into Panacea is a major problem for many fishermen
(Table 10). Dredging would be prohibitive, however, so costs were not
estimated nor included in this report. See the RSAL report for additional
discussion of these points.

Needed Facilities

Total facility costs for Panacea are substantially smaller than for
other ports discussed. While dock space is needed and represents most of





54


Table 28.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port invest-
ments, five-year projections, Eastpoint.

Year
Item r 2 3-5
------------------ Dollars --------------
Total revenue '11,747 15,660 19,575
Total expenses 78,494 84,244 89,994
Return (loss) over expense (10,755) (12,590) (14,425)
Total (66,749) (68,584) (70,419)

facilities were reported as needed in Carrabelle (Table 10). Gear
supply and electronics firms began operating there early in 1978 which may
satisfy some of these needs.

Wakulla County

Current Facilities

Panacea is. the port used by most Wakulla County fishermen though several
land in St. Marks or Alligator Point and others use Franklin County ports.
Twenty-three fishermen returned questionnaires with a sizeable number using
shirmp and fish houses, ice and fuel sales, and docking and engine repair
(Table 31). Facilities rated by one-third or more of the respondents as
needing improvement were ice supplies, docking and engine repair (Table 32).
Personal interviews revealed that adequate supplies of fish scrap were
not available in Panacea for use as crab bait. The long winding, shallow
channel from the Gulf into Panacea is a major problem for many fishermen
(Table 10). Dredging would be prohibitive, however, so costs were not
estimated nor included in this report. See the RSAL report for additional
discussion of these points.

Needed Facilities

Total facility costs for Panacea are substantially smaller than for
other ports discussed. While dock space is needed and represents most of





55


the cost shown (Table 33), the blue crab boats predominant in Panacea do
not require large docks. Costs for an ice plant and gear storage were also
estimated along with revenue and expense (Appendix Table 30). Estimated
revenue did not cover annual operating cost, and was considerably short of
total cost (Table 34).
Repair and supply services were also needed according to Wakulla County
fishermen. However, the volume of year round business may not be large
enough to support a firm of each type. A branch, mobile or part-time
outlet might be profitable.
The problem of inadequate local supplies of crab bait is difficult to
approach. If more vessels landed fish in Panacea, with larger numbers being
headed and gutted there, more bait would be available. However, the diffi-
cult channel and lack of many supporting facilities in Panacea keeps
fishing boats from landing there. Thus, bait supplies are highly dependent
on imports from other areas.

Table 29.--Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Carrabelle, 1978.

Item Description Size Cost per unit Total cost

Feet Square feet --------- Dollars -------
Docks
Unloading 2,865 X 20 57,300 22 1,260,600
Fuel and ice 250 X 10 2,500 20 50,000
Berthing 5,890 X 10 58,900 20 1,178,000
Total docks 2,488,600

Buildings
Ice plant
Manufacturing 30 tons/day 82,000
Storage 75 tons
Total ice plant 82,000

Gear storage 19,500 13 253,500
Total buildings 335,500

Total 2,824,100

(See Appendix C, Appendix Tables 22 and 23, for factors used in estimating
facility requirements).





56


Table 30.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Carrabelle.

Year
Items 1 2 3-5
--------------Dollars----------------
Total revenue 109,671 146,228 182,785
Total expense 446,310 457,810 469,310
Return (Loss)
Over expense 39,870 64,927 89,984
Total (336,639) (311,582) (286,525)


Table 31.--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by commer-
cial fishermen in Wakulla County, 1977.

Fishermen
Facility Currently using would use
Number Percent Number Percent
Shrimp house 9 39 2 9
Crab house 5 22 1 4
Oyster house 2 9 0 0
Fish house 12 52 1 4
Processing unused fish 3 13 2 9
Freezer, cold storage 2 9 4 17
Bait supply 7 30 2 9
Ice plant 12 52 3 13
Fuel sales 15 65 2 9
Groceries 9 39 0 0
Docking 12 52 2 9
Gear storage 1 4 1 4
Gear supply 5 22 3 13
Gear repair 6 26 1 4
Electronics repair 6 26 1 4
Engine repair 12 52 2 9
Marine railway 7 30 2 9
Restaurant 6 26 1 4
Retail seafood market 4 17 0 0
Fishermens' meeting room 0 0 3 13

Total responses 23 -





57


Table 32.--Ratings of seafood port
Wakulla County, 1977.


facilities by commercial fishermen in


Fishermen
Facility Rating Saying needs improvement Share
Number Number Percent
Shrimp house 8 2 25
Crab house 4 3 75
Oyster house 2 1 50
Fish house 9 3 33
Processing unused fish 3 2 67
Freezer, cold storage 1 0 0
Bait supply 5 4 80
Ice plant 9 5 56
Fuel sales 12 4 33
Groceries 6 1 17
Docking 12 6 50
Gear storage 1 0 0
Gear supply 4 2 50
Gear repair 6 3 50
Electronics repair 4 1 25
Engine repair 10 5 50
Marine railway 6 2 33
Restaurant 5 0 0
Retail seafood market 4 0 0
Fishermens' meeting room 0 0 0
Total responses 23 -


Table 33.--Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Panacea, 1978.

Item Description Size Cost per unit Total cost
Feet Square feet ----------dollars------
Docks
Unloading 700x20 14,000 22 308,000
Fuel and ice 250x10 2,500 20 50,000
Berthing 800x10 8,000 20 160,000
Total docks 518,000

Buildings
Ice Plant
Manufacturing 10 tons/day 28,000
Storage 25 tons 7,000
Total ice plants 35,000
Gear storage 3,000 13 39,000
Total buildings 74,000
Total 592,000


used in estimating


(See Appendix C, Appendix Tables 23 and 23, for factors
facility requirements).





58


Table 34.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Panacea.

Year
Items 1 2 3-5
---------------Dollars----------------
Total revenue 24,619 32,970 41,212

Total expenses 108,405 115,765 123,125

Return (loss)
over expense (4,861) (3,870) (2,988)
Total (83,786) (82,795) (81,913)



Nassau County


Current Facilities

The primary port in Nassau County, Fernandina Beach, is somewhat better
equipped than several ports previously discussed. This condition coupled
with a decline in numbers of vessels and landings in Nassau County resulted
in fewer needs being identified by fishermen and dealers.
From a total of 17 fishermen completing mail questionnaires, ten used
shrimp houses, fuel sales and docks (Table 35). Seven to nine respondents
used ice, bought groceries, and used gear supply, electronics and diesel re-
pair and marine railway facilities.
Major needed improvements noted by fishermen in the survey were in
shrimp houses, ice plant and docks (Table 36). No specific shortcomings
in shrimp houses were identified in mail questionnaires or personal inter-
views, so it was not possible to determine why 50 percent of the fishermen
rating shrimp houses said improvements were needed.

Needed Facilities


Some additional docks and ice capacity were needed in Fernandina
Beach (Table 37). Some revenue would be generated (Appendix Table 31) but
not enough to cover all costs (Table 38).
Gear storage, repair and supply were also needed in Nassau County but
were not included in the analysis. With landings declining or static, the





58


Table 34.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Panacea.

Year
Items 1 2 3-5
---------------Dollars----------------
Total revenue 24,619 32,970 41,212

Total expenses 108,405 115,765 123,125

Return (loss)
over expense (4,861) (3,870) (2,988)
Total (83,786) (82,795) (81,913)



Nassau County


Current Facilities

The primary port in Nassau County, Fernandina Beach, is somewhat better
equipped than several ports previously discussed. This condition coupled
with a decline in numbers of vessels and landings in Nassau County resulted
in fewer needs being identified by fishermen and dealers.
From a total of 17 fishermen completing mail questionnaires, ten used
shrimp houses, fuel sales and docks (Table 35). Seven to nine respondents
used ice, bought groceries, and used gear supply, electronics and diesel re-
pair and marine railway facilities.
Major needed improvements noted by fishermen in the survey were in
shrimp houses, ice plant and docks (Table 36). No specific shortcomings
in shrimp houses were identified in mail questionnaires or personal inter-
views, so it was not possible to determine why 50 percent of the fishermen
rating shrimp houses said improvements were needed.

Needed Facilities


Some additional docks and ice capacity were needed in Fernandina
Beach (Table 37). Some revenue would be generated (Appendix Table 31) but
not enough to cover all costs (Table 38).
Gear storage, repair and supply were also needed in Nassau County but
were not included in the analysis. With landings declining or static, the





58


Table 34.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Panacea.

Year
Items 1 2 3-5
---------------Dollars----------------
Total revenue 24,619 32,970 41,212

Total expenses 108,405 115,765 123,125

Return (loss)
over expense (4,861) (3,870) (2,988)
Total (83,786) (82,795) (81,913)



Nassau County


Current Facilities

The primary port in Nassau County, Fernandina Beach, is somewhat better
equipped than several ports previously discussed. This condition coupled
with a decline in numbers of vessels and landings in Nassau County resulted
in fewer needs being identified by fishermen and dealers.
From a total of 17 fishermen completing mail questionnaires, ten used
shrimp houses, fuel sales and docks (Table 35). Seven to nine respondents
used ice, bought groceries, and used gear supply, electronics and diesel re-
pair and marine railway facilities.
Major needed improvements noted by fishermen in the survey were in
shrimp houses, ice plant and docks (Table 36). No specific shortcomings
in shrimp houses were identified in mail questionnaires or personal inter-
views, so it was not possible to determine why 50 percent of the fishermen
rating shrimp houses said improvements were needed.

Needed Facilities


Some additional docks and ice capacity were needed in Fernandina
Beach (Table 37). Some revenue would be generated (Appendix Table 31) but
not enough to cover all costs (Table 38).
Gear storage, repair and supply were also needed in Nassau County but
were not included in the analysis. With landings declining or static, the





59


number of fishermen operating out of Fernandina Beach has decreased. Addi-
tional supply and support firms might not be able to justify a full-time
outlet there. The RSAL report did not include Fernandina Beach because no
major dock needs were identified, nor were channel improvements needed.


Table 35.--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities
cial fishermen in Nassau County, 1977.


by commer-


Fishermen
Facility Currently using Would use
Number Percent Number Percent

Shrimp house 10 59 0 0
Crab house 2 11 0 0
Oyster house 0 0 0 0
Fish house 3 18 0 0
Processing unused fish 1 6 1 6
Freezer, cold storage 0 0 2 12

Bait supply 1 6 0 0
Ice plant 8 47 2 12
Fuel sales 10 59 1 6
Groceries 9 53 0 0

Docking 10 59 0 0
Gear storage 0 0 0 0
Gear supply 7 41 0 0
Gear repair 5 29 0 0
Electronics repair 8 47 2 12
Diesel repair 9 53 1 6
Marine railway 9 53 0 0

Restaurant 5 29 0 0
Retail seafood market 3 18 0 0
Fishermens' meeting room 1 6 1 6

Total responses 17 -





60


Table 36.--Ratings of seafood port
Nassau County, 1977.


facilities by commercial fishermen in


Fishermen
Facility Rating Saying needs improvement Share

Number Number Percent

Shrimp house 10 -5 50
Crab house 2 1 50
Oyster house 0 0 0
Fish house 2 1 50
Processing unused fish 1 0 0
Freezer, cold storage 0 0 0

Bait supply 1 0 0
Ice plant 8 4 50
Fuel sales 9 0 0
Groceries 8 0 0

Docking 10 6 60
Gear storage 0 0 0
Gear supply 6 0 0
Gear repair 3 0 0
Electronics repair 7 2 29
Diesel repair 8 1 12
Marine railway 8 2 25

Restaurant 4 0 0
Retail seafood market 3 1 33
Fishermens' meeting room 1 1 100

Total responses 17 -



Table 37.--Port facilities needed for commercial fishing, Fernandina Beach,
1978.

Item Description Size Cost per unit Total cost


Feet


Docks
Unloading
Fuel and ice
Berthing
Total docks


770 X 20
250 X 10
300 X 10


Square feet ---------- Dollars ------


15,400
2,500
3,000


22
20
20


338,800
50,000
60,000
448,800





61


Table 37.--Continued.

Item Description Size Cost per unit Total cost

Feet Square feet ---------- Dollars ------

Buildings
Ice plant
Manufacturing 12 tons/day 30,000
Storage 30 tons 7,000
Total i:ce plants 37,000
Gear storage 900 13 11,700
Total buildings 48,700
Total 497,500

(See Appendix C, Appendix Tables 22 and 23 for factors used in estimating
facility requirements).

Table 38.--Estimated annual revenue, expense and return for port improve-
ments, five-year projection, Fernandina Beach.

Year
Item 1 2 3-5
------------------------ Dollars ------------------
Total revenue 22,228 29,637 37,046

Total expense 100,146 109,346 118,546

Return (loss) over
expense (11,591) (13,382) (15,173)

Total (77,918) (79,709) (81,500)


Duval County


Current Facilities

Fishermen landing their catch in Duval County use Mayport or other areas
near Jacksonville. Only Mayport is considered in the discussion of current




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs