[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54399-54409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27692]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
27 CFR Part 9
RIN 1512-AA07
[Notice No. 856]
Establishment of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area and the
Realignment of the Boundary of the Central Coast Viticultural Area (97-
242)
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has received
a petition proposing the establishment of a viticultural area in the
State of California to be known as San Francisco Bay. The proposed area
is located mainly within five counties which border the San Francisco
Bay and partly within two other counties. These counties are: San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and partly in
Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. The proposed San Francisco Bay
viticultural area encompasses approximately 3,087 square miles total
containing nearly 6,000 acres planted to grapes and over 70 wineries.
In conjunction with the petition, ATF received a proposal to amend the
boundaries of the current Central Coast viticultural area to include
the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area. As the current
boundaries already encompass part of the proposed San Francisco Bay
viticultural area, approximately 1,278 square miles would be added to
Central Coast with an additional 3,027 acres planted to grapes and 21
more wineries.
DATES: Written comments must be received by January 20, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Chief, Wine, Beer, and Spirits
Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol,
[[Page 54400]]
Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091-0221 (Attn:
Notice No. 856). Copies of the petitions, the proposed regulations, the
appropriate maps, and any written comments received will be available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the ATF Reading
Room, Office of Public Affairs and Disclosure, Room 6480, 650
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC., 20226.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Brokaw, Wine, Beer and Spirits
Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC., 20226 (202) 927-8230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 23, 1978, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR
37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27 CFR Part 4. These regulations
allow the establishment of definitive viticultural areas. The
regulations allow the name of an approved viticultural area to be used
as an appellation of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements.
On October 2, 1979, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR
56692) which added a new Part 9 to 27 CFR, for the listing of approved
American viticultural areas, the names of which may be used as
appellations of origin.
Section 4.25a(e)(1), title 27, CFR, defines an American
viticultural area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable
by geographic features, the boundaries of which have been delineated in
Subpart C of Part 9.
Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the procedure for proposing an
American viticultural area. Any interested person may petition ATF to
establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition
should include:
(a) Evidence that the name of the proposed viticultural area is
locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in
the petition;
(b) Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the
viticultural area are as specified in the petition;
(c) Evidence relating to the geographical characteristics (climate,
soil, elevation, physical features, etc.) which distinguish the
viticultural features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;
(d) A description of the specific boundaries of the viticultural
area, based on features which can be found on United States Geological
Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and
(e) A copy (or copies) of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the
boundaries prominently marked.
Petition for the Proposed San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area
ATF has received a petition from Mr. Philip Wente, Vice President
of Wente Bros., proposing to establish a new viticultural area in
Northern California to be known as San Francisco Bay. The proposed San
Francisco Bay viticultural area is located mainly within five counties
which border the San Francisco Bay and partly within two other
counties. These counties are: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Alameda, Contra Costa and partly in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties.
The petitioner claims that Santa Cruz County, although it has no Bay
shoreline, has traditionally been associated with the place name San
Francisco Bay. The portion of the Santa Clara Valley located in San
Benito County has been included. The proposed viticultural area
encompasses approximately 3,087 square miles total containing nearly
6000 acres planted to grapes and over 70 wineries.
The petitioner claims that the proposed San Francisco Bay
viticultural area is a distinctive grape growing region. According to
the petitioner, the area is distinguished by a unique marine climate
which is heavily influenced by the proximity of the San Francisco Bay
and the Pacific Ocean. Specifically, the San Francisco Bay and the
local geographical features surrounding it permit the cooling influence
of the Pacific Ocean to reach farther into the interior of California
in the Bay Area than elsewhere along the California coast.
In proposing boundaries for the San Francisco Bay viticultural
area, the petitioner has purposely included the waters of the San
Francisco Bay as well as urban areas, particularly the City of San
Francisco. The petitioner feels that the San Francisco Bay is the
``heart and soul of this appellation, its namesake and unifying force,
the source of its weather, the focal point of its history.'' As such,
the petitioner believes that it should not be cut out of the center of
the appellation. Although it is not a feasible vineyard site, the city
has long been a wine industry hub.
The evidence submitted by the petitioner is discussed in detail
below. Given the scope of the proposals and the wide range of interests
that are likely to be affected by the establishment of a San Francisco
Bay viticultural area, ATF wishes to solicit public comment
particularly with respect to the following questions raised by the
petition:
(1) Is there sufficient evidence that the name, ``San Francisco
Bay,'' can be associated with regions south and east of the bay such as
Santa Clara Valley and Livermore? Do these regions have climatic or
geographic differences with other regions of the proposed area to such
a degree that they cannot be considered as one viticultural area?
(2) Does the evidence support exclusion from the proposed
viticultural area of the regions north of the Bay, i.e., Marin, Napa,
Solano, and Sonoma Counties?
(3) Can the regions where grapes cannot be grown in the proposed
viticultural area, such as the dense urban settings and the Bay itself,
be easily segregated from the rest of the proposed area? Does it
undermine the notion of a viticultural area to keep them included?
Evidence That the Name of the Area is Locally or Nationally Known
According to the petitioner, San Francisco Bay is a locally,
nationally and internationally recognized place name. Therefore, the
petitioner believes that San Francisco Bay is the appropriate name for
the proposed area, since even people who do not know the names of any
California counties have an idea where the San Francisco Bay is. The
petitioner claims that to people all over the world, San Francisco Bay
calls to mind the well-known body of water by that name and, by
inference, the land areas that surround it.
The counties of San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara
and San Mateo--within which the proposed area is located--border the
San Francisco Bay. According to the petitioner, Santa Cruz County,
although it has no Bay shoreline, has traditionally been associated
with the place name San Francisco Bay. The petitioner also included the
portion of the Santa Clara Valley located in San Benito County.
According to the petitioner, the names ``San Francisco Bay area''
or ``San Francisco Bay region'' sometimes refer to an area that is
different than the area discussed in this petition. The petitioner
claims that although sources differ in how broadly they define the San
Francisco Bay region, the various definitions--without exception--
include the counties mentioned above. The following sources, are cited
by the petitioner as being representative of the consensus among
experts that the petitioned area is widely known by the name San
Francisco Bay.
According to the petitioner, the name San Francisco Bay is more
frequently
[[Page 54401]]
and more strongly associated with the counties lying south and east of
the San Francisco Bay than with nearby counties to the north. For
example, the petitioner cites the 1967 Time Life book entitled ``The
Pacific States,'' which describes the San Francisco Bay Area as a
megalopolis with the city [of San Francisco] as the center, stretching
40 miles south to San Jose and from the Pacific to Oakland and beyond.
The petitioner also cites weather expert Harold Gilliam, in his
book Weather of the San Francisco Bay Region, as discussing an area
including San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa
Cruz Counties. The petitioner points out that James E. Vance, Jr.,
Professor of Geography at the University of California, Berkeley,
studied the same area in his book entitled Geography and Urban
Evolution in the San Francisco Bay Area. Also, according to the
petitioner, climatologist Clyde Patton studied the same region in his
definitive work Climatology of Summer Fogs in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Mr. Vance's and Mr. Patton's maps of ``Bay Area Place Names'' are
included with the petition.
A final source cited by the petitioner is Lawrence Kinnaird,
University of California Professor of History, who wrote a History of
the Greater San Francisco Bay Region. According to the petitioner, Mr.
Kinnaird's book also covers the counties of San Francisco, Santa Clara,
Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz.
Historical or Current Evidence That the Boundaries of the
Viticultural Area Are as Specified in the Petition
According to the petitioner, within the grape growing and
winemaking community, the name San Francisco Bay has always been
identified with the area proposed in the petition. In support of this
claim, the petitioner cited several references to reflect the
industry's perception of this place name.
For example, wine writer Hugh Johnson, in his book The World Atlas
of Wine, devotes a separate section (``South of the Bay'') to the
winegrowing areas of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast. According
to the petitioner, Mr. Johnson describes the traditional centers of
wine-growing in this area as concentrated in the Livermore Valley east
of the Bay; the western foot-hills of the Diablo range; the towns south
of the Bay, and along the slopes of the Santa Cruz mountains down to a
cluster of family wineries round the Hecker Pass. The petitioner claims
that Mr. Johnson repeatedly distinguishes the winegrowing region south
and east of the Bay from areas to the north of the Bay. In support of
this claim, the petitioner refers to a statement from Mr. Johnson's
book pointing out that the area just south and east of San Francisco
Bay is wine country as old as the Napa Valley.
Another writer cited by the petitioner is Robert Lawrence Balzer
who devotes a chapter to ``Vineyards and Wineries: Bay Area and Central
Coast Counties'' in his book Wines of California. According to the
petitioner, this chapter and the accompanying map include wineries and
vineyards in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa
Cruz Counties. The petitioner claims that throughout his book, Mr.
Balzer makes it clear that he differentiates the San Francisco Bay area
grape growing areas from those north of San Francisco Bay and south of
Monterey Bay. In support of this claim, the petitioner cites several
quotes from the book. For example, Mr. Balzer states that, ``Logic, as
well as geography, dictates our division into these unofficial groups
of counties: North Coast, Bay Area and Central Coast, South Central
Coast, Central Valley, and Southern California. The vineyard domain
south of San Francisco is as rich and colorful in its vintage history
as the more celebrated regions north of the Bay Area.'' According to
the petitioner, it is clear that this author does not consider Napa and
Sonoma Counties as part of the Bay Area. As evidence of this, the
petitioner cites the following statement, ``Alameda County does not
have the scenic charm of * * * Napa and Sonoma * * *.'' The petitioner
points out that the same book contains a photograph showing the Golden
Gate Bridge and San Francisco Bay with the caption, ``San Francisco Bay
divides the North Coast from the other wine areas of California.''
According to the petitioner, in his book Vineyards and Wineries of
America, Patrick W. Fegan distinguishes the winegrowing region of the
San Francisco Bay Area from Monterey, noting that when urban
development around the Bay Area began to threaten vineyard areas,
University of California professors proposed planting vineyards in
Monterey County.
Another source cited by the petitioner in support of the proposed
boundaries is Grape Intelligence, a reporting service for California
winegrape industry statistics. According to the petitioner, Grape
Intelligence issues a yearly report for grape varieties in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Reports for this region cover San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Cruz, Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
The petitioner also cited historic evidence. According to the
petitioner, the San Francisco Viticultural District, defined by the
State Viticultural Commissioners at the end of the last century,
comprised the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa
Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey--but no areas north of the
Bay.
The petitioner claims that the California Department of Food and
Agriculture currently considers the proposed area as a single unit. The
petitioner states that the Grape Pricing Districts established by the
State of California reflect the joined perception of the six San
Francisco Bay counties, by grouping San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
Cruz, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa together in District 6.
The petitioner provided a list of ``Largest Bay Area Wineries''
from a chart which appeared in the San Francisco Business Times of
November 21, 1988. The list includes 21 wineries in Alameda, Contra
Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. No wineries from the
North Coast counties of Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, or Lake are included.
Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features (Climate, Soil,
Elevation, Physical Features, etc.) Which Distinguish Viticultural
Features of the Proposed Area From Surrounding Areas
Climate
According to the petitioner, the unifying and distinguishing
feature of the coastal climate of the proposed area is the influence of
both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. The petitioner claims
that coastal areas north of the proposed area are influenced by the
Pacific Ocean and by the San Pablo and Richardson Bays, while areas
south of the proposed area are influenced by the Pacific Ocean and by
Monterey Bay. In addition, the ocean influence enters each region
through different routes--through the Estero Gap in the North Coast,
through the Golden Gate in the San Francisco Bay region, and through
Monterey Bay in the southerly portion of Central Coast.
According to the petitioner, west to east flowing winds named the
westerlies, which bring weather systems in California onshore from the
ocean, prevail in the proposed area. Directly affecting the weather in
the San Francisco Bay area is the Pacific high pressure system,
centered a thousand miles off the Pacific Coast. The petitioner claims
that during winter months, its location south of San Francisco allows
the passage of
[[Page 54402]]
westward moving, rain producing, low pressure storms through the area.
According to the petitioner, during the summer months the high is
located closer to the latitude of San Francisco. It then deflects rain
producing storms to the north, producing a dry summer climate in San
Francisco area. The petitioner claims that the winds from the high
(which flow onshore from the northwest to the southeast) produce a cold
southward flowing surface water current (called the California Current)
off the California coast by a process called upwelling, in which cold
deep water is brought to the surface. When moist marine air from the
Pacific High flows onshore over this cold water, it cools, producing
fog and/or stratus cloud areas which are transported inland by wind.
Climatic Affect and Proposed Boundaries
The petitioner states that from a meteorological perspective, the
northwesterly windflow through the Estero Gap (near Petaluma in Sonoma
County) into the Petaluma Valley, provides the major source of marine
influence for areas north of the Golden Gate. Airflow inland from San
Pablo Bay also affects the climate of southern Napa and Sonoma
Counties. According to the petitioner, San Francisco Bay has little
impact on the weather in the region to its north. The onshore
prevailing northwesterly flow direction, in combination with the
coastal range topographic features of counties north of the Bay and the
pressure differential of the Central Valley, minimize a northward
influence from the air that enters the Golden Gate. According to the
petitioner, the higher humidity, lower temperatures and wind flow that
enter the Golden Gate gap do not flow north of the San Francisco Bay.
The petitioner states that, as a result of the different air mass
sources, grape growing sites immediately north of the Bay are cooler
than corresponding sites in the Bay Area. As an example, the petitioner
cites General Viticulture which lists Napa with 2,880 degree days,
while Martinez (directly south of Napa on the Carquinez Strait) has
3,500 degree days. Calistoga is listed as 3,150 degree days, while
Livermore (approximately equidistant from the Carquinez Strait, but to
the south) has 3,400. According to the petitioner, the degree day
concept was developed by UC Davis Professors Amerine and Winkler as a
measure of climate support for vine growth and grape ripening; large
degree day values indicate warmer climates.
According to the petitioner, the proposed San Francisco Bay
viticultural area is also distinguished from the counties north of the
San Francisco Bay by annual rainfall amounts. The petitioner states
that most winter storms that hit the Central California coast originate
in the Gulf of Alaska. Thus, locations in the North Coast viticultural
area generally receive more rain than sites in the proposed
viticultural area.
According to the petitioner, this effect is illustrated by Hamilton
Air Force Base on the northwest shore of the San Pablo Bay in Marin
County. The base gets 25% more rain in a season than does San Mateo,
which has a corresponding bayshore location 34 miles to the south. The
petitioner points out that San Francisco gets an average of 21 inches
of rain annually, but nine miles north of the Golden Gate, Kentfield
gets 46 inches--more than double the amount of rain. According to the
petitioner, average rainfall over the entire south bay wine producing
area is only 18 inches, while the City of Napa averages 25 inches,
Sonoma County (average of 5 sites) averages 35 inches, and Mendocino
County averages 40 inches.
According to the petitioner, it should be noted that the California
North Coast Grape Growers supported the petitioner's position. In a
letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms dated September
14, 1979, they asked that the term North Coast Counties be applied only
to Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino counties. The petitioner claims that part
of their reasoning was the observations of Professor Crowley of the
Geography Department at Sonoma State University who said that the
counties north of the San Francisco Bay have different climates from
the counties south of the bay.
Thus, the petitioner maintains that the main determinants of the
northern boundary of the proposed viticultural area include the: (1)
Natural geographic/topographic barriers, (2) lack of direct San
Francisco Bay influence in areas to its north, and (3) different
predominant coastal influences in the northern area. The petitioner
feels that these factors lead to significant wind flow, temperature,
and precipitation differences between the areas north and south of San
Francisco Bay. Thus, the petitioner claims that it is logical to draw
the northern boundary of the proposed area at the point where the
Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco Bay separate the northern
counties, i.e., Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma of the North Coast
viticultural area from the counties of San Francisco and Contra Costa.
According to the petitioner, the eastern boundary of the proposed
San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area matches the existing boundary of
the Central Coast Viticultural area and is located at the inland
boundary of significant coastal influence, i.e., along the hills and
mountains of the Diablo Range that form a topographical barrier to the
intrusion of marine air.
According to the petitioner, east of the Diablo Range lies the
Central Valley, distinguished from the proposed area by its higher
temperature, lower humidity, and decreased rainfall. The petitioner
states that, the Central Valley has a completely continental climate,
i.e., much hotter in summer and cooler in winter. Amerine & Winkler
categorize the grape growing areas in the Central Valley (Modesto,
Oakdale, Stockton, Fresno) as Region V (over 4,000 degree days), while
sites in the proposed area range from Region I to III. This is
illustrated on a ``Degree Day Map'' provided by the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, north of Altamont, the proposed
boundary continues to follow the inland boundary of coastal influence.
(This portion of the boundary matches the concurrently submitted
proposed boundary extension for the Central Coast Viticultural area.)
Like the existing eastern boundary of the Central Coast, this extension
excludes the innermost range of coastal mountains. The eastern boundary
includes Martinez and Concord, but excludes Antioch, and the eastern
portion of Contra Costa County.
The petitioner claims that the average precipitation in the Central
Valley is lower than in the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural
area. The following are thirty year average rainfall statistics in
inches for locations in the Central Valley: Modesto 10.75, Fresno
10.32, Los Banos 7.98, Lodi 12.74, Antioch 12.97.
Thus, according to the petitioner, the main determinants of the
proposed eastern boundary of the proposed viticultural area include the
(1) historic existing eastern boundary of the Central Coast
viticultural area, (2) natural geographic/topographic climatic barrier
created by the Diablo Range, and (3) the inland boundary of the coastal
marine influence. The petitioner feels that these factors lead to
significant temperature, humidity and precipitation differences between
the areas east and west of the proposed eastern boundary.
According to the petitioner, the southern boundary matches those of
the Santa Cruz and Santa Clara viticultural areas. As discussed in the
section on
[[Page 54403]]
climate, the San Francisco Bay influence is diminished and the Monterey
Bay influence is felt south of the proposed area. According to the
petitioner, the regional northwestern prevailing wind flow direction
generally prevents the Monterey Bay influence from affecting the
climate in the proposed area.
According to the petitioner, Monterey Bay has a very broad mouth
with high mountain ranges to both the north and south. The petitioner
claims that fog and ocean air traveling along the Pajaro River do on
rare occasions reach the south end of the Santa Clara Valley to the
north, but most of the Monterey Bay influence travels to the east and
south (borne by the prevailing northwest wind) into the Salinas Valley
and up against the eastern coastal hills.
According to the petitioner, Central Coast climate thus gradually
warms with increased distance from the San Francisco Bay, as air
traveling over land areas south of the bay accumulates heat and dries
out. The petitioner claims that the warming trend reverses, however, at
the point where the south end of the Santa Clara Valley meets the
Pajaro River. Here wind and fog from the Monterey Bay, flowing westward
through the Pajaro River gap, begins to assert a cooling influence.
According to the petitioner, the decrease of San Francisco Bay
influence, and the concurrent increase of Monterey Bay influence, is
demonstrated by the difference in heat summation between Gilroy and
Hollister. The petitioner claims that Central Coast sites warm with
increasing distance from the San Francisco Bay, but this pattern
reverses at the southern boundary of the Santa Clara Valley
viticultural area, between Gilroy and Hollister, as the influence of
the Monterey Bay becomes dominant. According to the petitioner, this
produces significantly cooler temperatures in Hollister than in Gilroy,
even though Hollister is farther from San Francisco Bay.
Petition Table 2 ``Decrease in San Francisco Bay Influence,''
indicates a gradual warming trend as one travels southward from the San
Francisco Bay. According to the petitioner, past Gilroy to Hollister,
however, a new cooling trend is observed due to the influence of the
Monterey Bay.
According to the petitioner, Hollister is significantly cooler than
Gilroy even though its location is sheltered by hills from the full
influence of Monterey Bay. The weather station near coastal Monterey
shows the strongest cooling from the Monterey Bay. The petitioner
claims that continuing south in the Salinas Valley, the climate again
grows warmer with increasing distance from Monterey Bay.
In summary, according to the petitioner, the southern boundary of
the proposed area has been defined to match the southern boundary of
the Santa Clara Valley and Santa Cruz viticultural areas because this
is the location of the transition from a climate dominated by flow from
the San Francisco Bay to one dominated by flow from Monterey Bay.
According to the petitioner, the west boundary of the proposed San
Francisco Bay Viticultural Area follows the Pacific coastline from San
Francisco south to just north of the City of Santa Cruz. This area is
greatly influenced by Pacific Ocean breezes and fog. According to the
petitioner, the western hills of the Santa Cruz Mountains are exposed
to the strong prevailing northwest winds. The climate of the eastern
portion of these hills is affected by the moderating influences of the
San Francisco Bay.
According to the petitioner, just north of the City of Santa Cruz,
the western boundary turns east excluding a small portion of Santa Cruz
County from the proposed area, as it was from the Santa Cruz Mountains
viticultural area. The petitioner claims that the area around Santa
Cruz and Watsonville is close to sea level, and is sheltered from the
prevailing northwesterly Pacific Ocean winds by the Santa Cruz
mountains. Therefore, fog and bay breezes from Monterey Bay impact the
area, while the San Francisco Bay does not influence the area.
Thus, according to the petitioner, the main determinant of the
western boundary of the proposed viticultural area include the (1)
natural geography of the coastline, (2) Pacific Ocean and San Francisco
Bay influence, and (3) historical identity as part of the San Francisco
Bay Area.
Topography
According to the petitioner, the weather in the bay region is a
product of the modification of the onshore marine air masses described
above by the topography of the coast ranges, a double chain of
mountains running north-northwest to south-southeast. Each chain
divides into two or more smaller chains, creating a patchwork of
valleys.
According to the petitioner, as the elevation of the western chain
of the coastal ridge is generally higher than the altitude of the
inversion base, the inversion acts as a lid to prevent the cool onshore
flowing marine air and fog from rising over the mountains and flowing
inland. Because of this, successive inland valleys generally have less
of a damp, seacoast climate and more of a dry, continental climate.
According to the petitioner, this pattern is modified by a few gaps
and passes in the mountain ranges that allow marine influences to
spread farther inland without obstruction. The petitioner claims that
these inland areas are, however, somewhat protected from the Pacific
fogs, which are evaporated as the flow is warmed by passage over the
warmer land surfaces.
The three largest sea level gaps in the central California coastal
range mountainous barrier are (north to south): Estero Lowland in
Sonoma, Golden Gate into San Francisco Bay, and Monterey Bay. According
to the petitioner, several smaller mountain pass gaps (San Bruno and
Crystal Springs) sometimes also allow for the inland spread of coastal
climate in the Bay Area when the elevated inversion base is high
enough.
According to the petitioner, the Bay Area climate is greatly
modified by San Francisco Bay, whose influence is similar to that of
the ocean, i.e., it cools summer high temperatures and warms winter low
temperatures. The petitioner states that the narrowness of the Golden
Gate limits the exchange of bay and ocean waters, and thus bay waters
are not quite as cold as the coastal ocean currents during the summer.
According to the petitioner, marine air exits the San Francisco Bay
(without having experienced the normal drying and heating effects
associated with over-land travel) in several directions. The
predominant outflow is carried by the onshore northwesterly winds
toward the south through the Santa Clara Valley to Morgan Hill and to
the east via the Hayward Pass and Niles Canyon.
According to the petitioner, temperatures at given locations in the
Bay Area are thus dependent on streamline distance (actual distance
traveled) from the ocean, rather than its ``as the crow flies''
distance from the ocean. The petitioner claims that Livermore Valley
temperatures show this phenomenon. Ocean air flows across San Francisco
Bay, through the Hayward Pass and Niles Canyon, and into the Livermore
Valley, causing a cooling effect in summer and a warming effect in
winter.
In summary, because of the interaction of topography with the
prevailing winds in the Bay Area, the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco
Bay are the major climatic influences in the proposed viticultural
area. According to the petitioner, this interaction has two principal
effects: (1) To allow the coastal influence of the Pacific Ocean to
[[Page 54404]]
extend farther east than otherwise possible, and (2) to modify that
coastal influence because of the moderating effects of Bay waters on
surrounding weather.
Proposal To Amend the Boundaries of the Central Coast Viticultural
Area
In conjunction with the petition to establish the San Francisco Bay
viticultural area, Mr. Philip Wente, Vice President of Wente Bros.,
proposes to amend the boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area
to encompass the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area.
According to the petitioner, an examination of the three large
viticultural areas on the California coast reveals a gap between
Monterey and Marin, where many acres of existing and potential
vineyards are not represented by any viticultural area. In petitioning
for the revision of the Central Coast viticultural area, the petitioner
claims to be continuing the logical pattern already established in the
organization of viticultural areas on the California coast. According
to the petitioner, the proposed revised Central Coast viticultural area
is a larger area that ties together several smaller sub-appellations
(Santa Clara Valley, Santa Cruz Mountains, Ben Lomond Mountain,
Livermore Valley, San Ysidro District, Pacheco Pass, San Benito,
Cienega Valley, Mount Harlan, Paicines, Lime Kiln Valley, Monterey,
Carmel Valley, Chalone, Arroyo Seco, Paso Robles, York Mountain, Edna
Valley, Arroyo Grande Valley, Santa Maria Valley, Santa Ynez Valley,
and the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area), all of which are
dominated by the same geographic and general marine influences that
create their climate.
According to the petitioner, the evidence presented in the petition
establishes that the well-known Central Coast name and the general
marine climate extend north and northwest beyond the current Central
Coast boundaries.
The Name, Central Coast as Referring to Santa Cruz and the Counties
Surrounding San Francisco Bay
According to the petitioner, the name Central Coast, as used by
wine writers and the state legislature, extends north and west into
Santa Cruz County and five counties that surround the San Francisco
Bay, beyond the area currently recognized as the Central Coast
viticultural area. In support of this claim, the petitioner cited
several references.
Patrick W. Fegan's book Vineyards and Wineries of America, contains
a map of ``Central Coastal Counties'' designating Contra Costa,
Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, San
Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara.
Another example cited by the petitioner is Central Coast Wine Tour,
published by Vintage Image in 1977 and 1980, which covers the area from
San Francisco to Santa Barbara and specifically describes past and
present wineries in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara,
San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties.
According to the petitioner, The Connoisseurs' Handbook of
California Wines defines ``Central Coast'' in the section entitled
``Wine Geography'' as: ``The territory lying south of San Francisco and
north of the city of Santa Barbara--San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara,
San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties.''
According to the petitioner, Bob Thompson and Hugh Johnson, in
their book The California Wine Book, describe the ``Central Coast'' as
an indeterminate area between San Francisco and Santa Barbara,
including San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Monterey, Santa Clara
and Santa Cruz Counties.
According to the petitioner, in Wines of California, by Robert
Balzer, the wine producing areas on the California coast are
categorized into three groups: North Coast counties, Bay Area and
Central Coast counties, and South Central Coast counties. The section
on ``Bay Area and Central Coast'' features a map, included with the
petition, illustrating the counties surrounding San Francisco Bay and
the Santa Cruz Mountains. The petitioner points out that listed among
the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast wineries in the book are seven
of the vintners who signed the petition to establish the Santa Cruz
Mountains Viticultural Area (David Bruce Winery, Felton-Empire
Vineyards, Mount Eden Vineyards, Martin Ray Vineyards, Ridge Vineyards,
Roudon-Smith Vineyards and Woodside Vineyards). Finally, the petitioner
provided a vineyard and winery map published by Sally Taylor and
Friends in the 1980's which includes Santa Cruz County on the map
entitled ``North Central Coast.''
According to the petitioner, in addition to the numerous
viticultural writings, government and scholarly studies on the climate
and geography of the California Central Coast also include the counties
around the San Francisco Bay in the proposed area.
According to the petitioner, the historic San Francisco
Viticultural District in 1880 grouped the counties of San Francisco,
San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Contra Costa together.
The 1930 University of California monograph ``Summer Sea Fogs of the
Central California Coast'' by Horace R. Byers focuses on an area ``from
Point Sur to the entrance of Tomales Bay, including San Francisco and
Monterey Bays: Santa Clara, San Ramon, Livermore, San Benito, and
Salinas valleys * * *'' These valleys are located in Santa Clara,
Contra Costa, Alameda, San Benito and Monterey Counties, respectively.
The petitioner cites section 25236 of the 1955 California Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act which allows the use of the description ``central
coastal counties dry wine'' on wine originating in several counties
including Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San
Luis Obispo counties. The petitioner recognizes that ``central coastal
counties'' is not a legal appellation under the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act. The petitioner stated that this law is mentioned
solely to support the fact that the counties surrounding San Francisco
Bay are well-accepted in California as belonging within the place name
``Central Coast.''
According to the petitioner, the California Division of Forestry's
``Sea Breeze Effects on Forest Fire Behavior in Central Coastal
California'' summarizes the results of several fireclimate surveys
conducted in the 1960's in several counties surrounding San Francisco
Bay. Currently, the petitioner points out that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration/National Climatic Data Center publishes
monthly summaries of climatological data grouped into geographical
divisions. The ``Central Coast Drainage'' division includes locations
in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties.
The petitioner believes that the sources discussed above
demonstrate that the counties included in the proposed revised Central
Coast boundaries are commonly and historically known as being within
the place-name ``Central Coast.''
Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features (Climate, Soil,
Elevation, Physical Features, etc.) Which Distinguish the
Viticultural Features of the Proposed Area From Surrounding Areas
Coastal Climate and Marine Influence
According to the petitioner, the coastal climate of the Central
Coast viticultural area is the principal feature which unifies the area
and distinguishes it from surrounding areas. As an
[[Page 54405]]
indication of the ``coastal climate'' effect on the area, the
petitioner cites the difference between July and September
temperatures. According to the petitioner, September (fall) is usually
warmer than July (summer) in coastal areas, while the reverse is true
in continental areas. The petitioner states that this unique coastal
characteristic results from two factors: fogs and air flows. Fogs keep
summer coastal temperatures low while the interior regions absorb all
of the sun's summer energy. These fogs diminish in strength and
frequency in the fall allowing more coastal solar gain and the
resultant temperature rise, while interior temperatures begin their
relative decline. According to the petitioner, this seasonal
fluctuation comes about when, (1) the pressure differential between the
Pacific high and the Central Valley is reduced which eliminates the
inversion cap over the coast ranges and, (2) the temperature of the
Pacific Ocean reaches its highest level in the fall which reduces the
cooling of onshore air flows. According to the petitioner, these air
flows from the Pacific Ocean invade the land mass through gaps in the
coast range. Thus, the petitioner claims that a location's climate is
dictated primarily by its position relative to the windstream distance
from the Pacific--the greater the windstream distance the greater the
July/October temperature differential and the greater the degree day
accumulation as the windstream will be increasingly warmed by the
ground it passes over.
Table 1 in the petition lists California cities in windstream
groups from the most coastal (initiation) to the most continental
(terminus). This table lists the difference (in degrees) between the
average July and September temperatures in each city, which constitutes
the measure of ``coastal'' character. Continental cities (Antioch to
Madera), which are outside the current and proposed boundaries of the
Central Coast, exhibit the highest July temperatures and the greatest
difference in temperature from July to September. Also, included are
accumulated Degree Days for April through October following Winkler's
system. According to the petitioner, this chart demonstrates that
within the coastal region--north and south--there is a continuum of
coastal influence and the ensuing heat gradient during the growing
season (Degree Days).
According to the petitioner, within the proposed extension, the
climate acts in an identical manner to the area in the existing Central
Coast viticultural area. To support this claim, the petitioner cites
petition Table I demonstrating that locations within the proposed
revision to the Central Coast viticultural area (San Francisco,
Richmond, Oakland, Berkeley, Half Moon Bay, Martinez, San Jose, Ben
Lomond, Palo Alto) share the same coastal character (i.e., (1) higher
September temperatures and, (2) an airstream continuum of Degree Day
temperatures correlated with the airstream distance from the Pacific
Ocean) as found at the current Central Coast cities (Monterey, Salinas,
Hollister, King City, Livermore, Gilroy). A Coastal Character Map
showing this data is attached to the petition. Accordingly, the
petitioner believes that the data presented above establishes that the
Central Coast boundary should be revised to accurately reflect the
extent of the central coast climate.
According to the petitioner, the proposed San Francisco Bay
viticultural area and the Central Coast viticultural area lie within
the same botanic zone. The petitioner cites the Sunset Western Garden
Book published for 55 years by the editors of Sunset Magazine. The
petitioner states that this comprehensive western plant encyclopedia
has become a leading authority regarding gardening in the western
United States. The Western Garden Book divides the region from the
Pacific Coast to the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains into twenty-
four climate zones. The Central Coast viticultural area lies within
Zones 7, 14, 15, 16, 17.
The petitioner believes that the climate zones established by
Sunset Magazine demonstrate that the main distinguishing feature of
Central Coast--the coastal climate--extends west to the Santa Cruz
coastline and north to the Golden Gate. The proposed revision to the
Central Coast viticultural area also lies within these zones.
According to the petitioner, the characteristic cool Mediterranean
climate of the Central Coast viticultural area extends north and west
of the current boundaries. This coastal Mediterranean climate is cool
in the summer and the marine fog which penetrates inland makes the
coast very oceanic, with little difference in temperature between mild
winters and cool summers. The Mediterranean climate classification is
so called because the lands of the Mediterranean Basin exhibit the
archetypical temperature and rainfall regimes that define the class. In
support of the Mediterranean climate claim, the petitioner cited The
Climatic Regions Map from Atlas of California. This map is based on the
Koeppen classification, which divides the world into climate regions
based on temperature, the seasonal variation of drought, and the
relationship of rainfall to potential evaporation. The Koeppen system
uses letters based on German words having no direct English
equivalents. The Climatic Regions Map depicts the extent of cool
Mediterranean climate both north and west of the current Central Coast
boundary and within it.
The map shows that Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo
and Santa Cruz counties in the proposed revision to the Central Coast
viticultural area, like Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo and Santa
Barbara counties in the current Central Coast viticultural area, are
mostly classified as Csb Mediterranean climates (average of warmest
month is less than 22 deg.C), with partial Csbn climate (more than
thirty days of fog) along the coast.
The petitioner states that it is due to this coastal climate
(mainly fog and wind), that the degree of marine influence in the
proposed revision to the Central Coast viticultural area is similar to
the degree of marine influence found at other places inside the current
Central Coast viticultural area. A map of central California, submitted
with the petition, shows the extent of marine fog in the area. This map
shows that the fog pattern in the proposed area is similar to other
areas included in Central Coast. The fog extends inland to
approximately the same extent throughout the proposed revised
viticultural area. According to the petitioner, the ``Retreat of Fog''
map submitted with the petition also shows the similarity in the
duration of fog in the current and proposed Central Coast viticultural
area. The petitioner points out that the similar fog pattern is most
evident along the coastal areas of Big Sur, Monterey Bay and San
Francisco.
Topography
According to the petitioner, Santa Cruz and the other San Francisco
Bay counties share the Central Coast's terrain. The petitioner pointed
out that one of the major California coast range gaps which produces
the climate within the current Central Coast boundaries lies within the
proposed revision to the Central Coast. The petitioner claims that the
three largest sea level gaps in the central California coastal range
mountainous barrier are (north to south): Estero Lowland in Sonoma
County, Golden Gate into San Francisco Bay, and Monterey Bay. According
to the petitioner, the Golden Gate and Monterey Bay allow the ocean
influence to enter into the current Central Coast viticultural area
creating its coastal climate which is the unifying and distinguishing
feature of the area. The main gap in the current Central Coast
[[Page 54406]]
viticultural area, the Monterey Bay allows marine air and fog from the
Pacific Ocean to travel south and inland, into the Salinas Valley. The
petitioner believes that this feature creates the ideal grape-growing
climate that exists in the Salinas Valley, but from a meteorological
perspective, it has comparatively little influence on the portion of
Central Coast viticultural area lying north of it. The on-shore
prevailing northwesterly flow direction, combined with the coastal
range topographical features north of the Bay's mouth, minimize
northward influence from the air that enters the Monterey Bay.
According to the petitioner, the Golden Gate gap introduces a cooling
marine influence and the San Francisco Bay allows marine air and fog to
travel much further inland and south through the Santa Clara and
Livermore Valleys and provides most of the coastal influence affecting
the northern portion of the Central Coast viticultural area.
The petitioner states that although the Golden Gate and San
Francisco Bay are primary influences on the current Central Coast
climate, neither shoreline is included in the current Central Coast
boundary. The petitioner believes that the proposed revision to the
Central Coast viticultural area logically extends the current Central
Coast boundaries to include the shores of the Golden Gate and San
Francisco Bay.
Boundaries
The proposed extension of the Central Coast viticultural area would
include the currently excluded portions of five counties which border
the San Francisco Bay. These counties are San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and all of Santa Cruz County. The
proposed San Francisco Bay appellation would add approximately 1,278
square miles to Central Coast. This area contains 3,027 acres planted
to grapes and 21 wineries.
The proposed revision to the Central Coast boundary follows the
Pacific coastlines of Santa Cruz, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties,
crosses San Francisco Bay, follows the northern boundary of Contra
Costa County to Concord, and then follows the inland boundary of
coastal influence, according to the petitioner, along straight lines
between landmarks in the Diablo Mountain Range to the current Central
Coast boundary.
The southern boundary of the Central Coast viticultural area
remains unchanged. The proposed changes to the western boundary, the
California coastline, consists of extending the boundary north to the
Golden Gate. The proposed eastern boundary is extended to include the
area northwest of Livermore up to the San Pablo Bay. From Altamont
(just east of Livermore) south, the proposed eastern boundary follows
the current boundary of the Central Coast viticultural area. North of
Altamont, the proposed boundary extension excludes the easternmost
range of coastal mountains. The proposed eastern boundary includes
Martinez and Concord, but excludes Antioch, and the eastern portion of
Contra Costa County.
Public Participation--Written Comments
ATF requests comments from all interested persons. Comments
received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered.
Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration
if it is practical to do so. However, assurance of consideration can
only be given to comments received on or before the closing date.
ATF will not recognize any submitted material as confidential and
comments may be disclosed to the public. Any material which the
commenter considers to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure
to the public should not be included in the comments. The name of the
person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.
Comments may be submitted by facsimile transmission to (202) 927-
8602, provided the comments: (1) Are legible; (2) are 8\1/2\'' x 11''
in size, (3) contain a written signature, and (4) are three pages or
less in length. This limitation is necessary to assure reasonable
access to the equipment. Comments sent by FAX in excess of three pages
will not be accepted. Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be
acknowledged. Facsimile transmitted comments will be treated as
originals.
Any person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public
hearing on the proposed regulation should submit his or her request, in
writing, to the Director within the 90-day comment period. The
Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all
circumstances, whether a public hearing will be held.
After consideration of all comments and suggestions, ATF may issue
a Treasury decision. The proposals discussed in this notice may be
modified due to comments and suggestions received.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not
apply to this notice because no requirement to collect information is
proposed.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this proposed regulation will not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
establishment of a viticultural area is neither an endorsement nor
approval by ATF of the quality of wine produced in the area, but rather
an identification of an area that is distinct from surrounding areas.
ATF believes that the establishment of viticultural areas merely allows
wineries to more accurately describe the origin of their wines to
consumers, and helps consumers identify the wines they purchase. Thus,
any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the
result of the proprietor's own efforts and consumer acceptance of wines
from that region.
No new requirements are proposed. Accordingly, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this proposal is not subject to the analysis required by
this Executive Order.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document is David W. Brokaw, Wine,
Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection,
Viticultural areas, and Wine.
Authority and Issuance
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, part 9, American
Viticultural Areas, is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Par. 2. Section 9.75 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to add 23
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) maps (19) through
(41), by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to add three
counties, by removing paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(12) and replacing
them with new paragraphs
[[Page 54407]]
(c)(2) through (c)(9) and, renumbering existing paragraphs (c)(13)
through (c)(40) as paragraphs (c)(10) through (c)(37).
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
* * * * *
Sec. 9.75 Central Coast
(a) Name. * * *
(b) Approved maps. * * *
* * * * *
(19) Diablo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised
1980
(20) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised
1980
(21) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953,
Photorevised 1980
(22) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,
Photorevised 1980
(23) Benicia, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised
1980
(24) Mare Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,
Photorevised 1980
(25) Richmond, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised
1980
(26) San Quentin, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,
Photorevised 1980
(27) Oakland West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,
Photorevised 1980
(28) San Francisco North, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,
Photorevised 1968 and 1973
(29) San Francisco South, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,
Photorevised 1980
(30) Montara Mountain, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,
Photorevised 1980
(31) Half Moon Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968 and 1973
(32) San Gregorio, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968
(33) Pigeon Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1968
(34) Franklin Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1968
(35) Ano Nuevo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1968
(36) Davenport, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1968
(37) Santa Cruz, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,
Photorevised 1981
(38) Felton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photorevised
1980
(39) Laurel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photoinspected
1978, Photorevised 1968
(40) Soquel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, Photorevised
1980
(41) Watsonville West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,
Photorevised 1980.
(c) Boundary. The Central Coast viticultural area is located in the
following California counties: Monterey, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara,
Alameda, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Contra Costa. * * *
* * * * *
(2) The boundary follows north along the shoreline of the Pacific
Ocean (across the Watsonville West, Soquel, Santa Cruz, Davenport, Ano
Nuevo, Franklin Point, Pigeon Point, San Gregorio, Half Moon Bay,
Montara Mountain and San Francisco South maps) to the San Francisco/
Oakland Bay Bridge. (San Francisco North map)
(3) From this point, the boundary proceeds east on the San
Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to the Alameda County shoreline. (Oakland
West map)
(4) From this point, the boundary proceeds east along the shoreline
of Alameda County and Contra Costa County across the Richmond, San
Quentin, Mare Island, and Benicia maps to a point marked BM 15 on the
shoreline of Contra Costa County. (Vine Hill map)
(5) From this point, the boundary proceeds in a southeasterly
direction in a straight line across the Honker Bay map to Mulligan Hill
elevation 1,438. (Clayton map)
(6) The boundary proceeds in southeasterly direction in a straight
line to Mt. Diablo elevation 3,849. (Clayton map)
(7) The boundary proceeds in a southeasterly direction in a
straight line across the Diablo and Tassajara maps to Brushy Peak
elevation 1,702. (Byron Hot Springs map)
(8) The boundary proceeds due south, approximately 400 feet, to the
northern boundaries of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 2 East.
(Byron Hot Springs map)
(9) The boundary proceeds due east along the northern boundaries of
Section 13 and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 3 East, to the
northeast corner of Section 18. (Byron Hot Springs map)
Par. 3. The table of sections in subpart C is proposed to be
amended by adding Sec. 9.157 to read as follows:
* * * * *
9.157 San Francisco Bay
Par. 4. Subpart C is proposed to be amended by adding Sec. 9.157 to
read as follows:
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
* * * * *
Sec. 9.157 San Francisco Bay
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``San Francisco Bay.''
(b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps for determining the
boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area are forty-two
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) maps and one
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 5 x 11 Minute (Topographic) map. They are titled:
(1) Pacheco Peak, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1971
(2) Gilroy Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971
(3) Mt. Sizer, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971
(4) Morgan Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1980
(5) Lick Observatory, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photoinspected 1973, Photorevised 1968
(6) San Jose East, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,
Photorevised 1980
(7) Calaveras Reservoir, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,
Photorevised 1980
(8) La Costa Valley, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1960,
Photorevised 1968
(9) Mendenhall Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971
(10) Altamont, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised
1981
(11) Byron Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953,
Photorevised 1968
(12) Tassajara, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953,
Photoinspected 1974, Photorevised 1968
(13) Diablo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised
1980
(14) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised
1980
(15) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953,
Photorevised 1980
(16) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,
Photorevised 1980
(17) Benicia, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised
1980
(18) Mare Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,
Photorevised 1980
(19) Richmond, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised
1980
(20) San Quentin, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,
Photorevised 1980
(21) Oakland West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,
Photorevised 1980
(22) San Francisco North, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,
Photorevised 1968 and 1973
(23) San Francisco South, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,
Photorevised 1980
(24) Montara Mountain, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,
Photorevised 1980
[[Page 54408]]
(25) Half Moon Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968 and 1973
(26) San Gregorio, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968
(27) Pigeon Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1968
(28) Franklin Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1968
(29) Ano Nuevo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1968
(30) Davenport, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1968
(31) Santa Cruz, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,
Photorevised 1981
(32) Felton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photorevised
1980
(33) Laurel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photoinspected
1978, Photorevised 1968
(34) Soquel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, Photorevised
1980
(35) Watsonville West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,
Photorevised 1980
(36) Loma Prieta, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968
(37) Watsonville East, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1980
(38) Mt. Madonna, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1980
(39) Gilroy, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photorevised
1981
(40) Chittenden, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1980
(41) San Felipe, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,
Photorevised 1971
(42) Three Sisters, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971
(c) Boundary. The San Francisco Bay viticultural area is located
mainly within the five counties which border the San Francisco Bay and
partly within two other counties in the State of California. These
counties are: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra
Costa and partly in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. The boundaries
of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, using landmarks and points
of reference found on appropriate U.S.G.S. maps, are as follows:
(1) Beginning at the intersection of the 37 degree 00' North
latitude parallel with State Route 152 on the Pacheco Peak Quadrangle.
(2) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line to
the intersection of Coyote Creek with the township line dividing
Township 9 South from Township 10 South on the Gilroy Hot Springs
Quadrangle.
(3) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line to
the intersection of the township line dividing Township 8 South from
Township 9 South with the range line dividing Range 3 East from Range 4
East on the Mt. Sizer Quadrangle.
(4) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line
(across the Morgan Hill Quadrangle) to the intersection of the township
line dividing Township 7 South from Township 8 South with the range
line dividing Range 2 East from Range 3 East on the Lick Observatory
Quadrangle.
(5) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line to
the intersection of State Route 130 with the township line dividing
Township 6 South from Township 7 South on the San Jose East Quadrangle.
(6) Then proceed in a northeasterly direction following State Route
130 to its intersection with the range line dividing Range 1 East from
Range 2 East on the Calaveras Reservoir Quadrangle.
(7) Then proceed north following this range line to its
intersection with the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct on the La Costa Valley
Quadrangle.
(8) Then proceed in a northeasterly direction in a straight line
following the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct to the western boundary of Section
14 in Township 4 South, Range 2 East on the Mendenhall Springs
Quadrangle.
(9) Then proceed south along the western boundary of Section 14 in
Township 4 South, Range 2 East to the southwest corner of Section 14 on
the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle.
(10) Then proceed east along the southern boundary of Section 14 in
Township 4 South, Range 2 East to the southeast corner of Section 14 on
the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle.
(11) Then proceed south along the western boundary of Section 24 in
Township 4 South, Range 2 East to the southwest corner of Section 24 on
the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle.
(12) Then proceed east along the southern boundary of Section 24 in
Township 4 South, Range 2 East and Section 19 in Township 4 South,
Range 3 East to the southeast corner of Section 19 on the Mendenhall
Springs Quadrangle.
(13) Then proceed north along the western boundaries of Sections
20, 17, 8, and 5 on the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle in Township 4
South, Range 3 East, north (across the Altamont Quadrangle) along the
western boundaries of Sections 32, 29, 20, 17, 8, and 5 in Township 3
South, Range 3 East, and north along the eastern boundaries of Sections
31, 30, 19, and 18 in Township 2 South, Range 3 East to the northeast
corner of Section 18 on the Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle.
(14) Then proceed due west along the northern boundaries of Section
18 and Section 13 (Township 2 South, Range 2 East) to a point
approximately 400 feet due south of Brushy Peak on the Byron Hot
Springs Quadrangle.
(15) Then proceed due north to Brushy Peak (elevation 1,702) on the
Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle.
(16) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line
(across the Tassajara and Diablo Quadrangles) to Mt. Diablo (elevation
3,849) on the Clayton Quadrangle.
(17) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line
to Mulligan Hill (elevation 1,438) on the Clayton Quadrangle.
(18) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line
(across the Honker Bay Quadrangle) to a point marked BM 15 on the
shoreline of Contra Costa County on the Vine Hill Quadrangle.
(19) Then proceed west along the shoreline of Contra Costa County
and Alameda County (across the Quadrangles of Benicia, Mare Island,
Richmond, and San Quentin) to the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge on
the Oakland West Quadrangle.
(20) Then proceed west on the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to
the San Francisco County shoreline on the San Francisco North
Quadrangle.
(21) Then proceed along the San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa
Cruz County shoreline (across the Quadrangles of San Francisco South,
Montara Mountain, Half Moon Bay, San Gregorio, Pigeon Point, Franklin
Point, Ano Nuevo and Davenport) to the place where Majors Creek flows
into the Pacific Ocean on the Santa Cruz Quadrangle.
(22) Then proceed northeasterly along Majors Creek to its
intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton Quadrangle.
(23) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line in a generally
easterly/northeasterly direction to its intersection with Bull Creek on
the Felton Quadrangle.
(24) Then proceed along Bull Creek to its intersection with Highway
9 on the Felton Quadrangle.
(25) Then proceed along Highway 9 in a northerly direction to its
intersection with Felton Empire Road.
(26) Then proceed along Felton Empire Road in a westerly direction
to its intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton
Quadrangle.
(27) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line (across the
Laurel, Soquel, Watsonville West and Loma Prieta Quadrangles) to its
intersection with
[[Page 54409]]
Highway 152 on the Watsonville East Quadrangle.
(28) Then proceed along Highway 152 in a northeasterly direction to
its intersection with the 600 foot contour line just west of Bodfish
Creek on the Watsonville East Quadrangle.
(29) Then proceed in a generally east/southeasterly direction along
the 600 foot contour line (across the Mt. Madonna and Gilroy
Quadrangles), approximately 7.3 miles, to the first intersection of the
western section line of Section 30, Township 11 South, Range 4 East on
the Chittenden Quadrangle.
(30) Then proceed south along the section line approximately 1.9
miles to the south township line at Section 31, Township 11 South,
Range 4 East on the Chittenden Quadrangle.
(31) Then proceed in an easterly direction along the township line
(across the San Felipe Quadrangle), approximately 12.4, miles to the
intersection of Township 11 South and Township 12 South and Range 5
East and Range 6 East on the Three Sisters Quadrangle.
(32) Then proceed north along the Range 5 East and Range 6 East
range line approximately 5.5 miles to Pacheco Creek on the Pacheco
Creek Quadrangle.
(33) Then proceed northeast along Pacheco Creek approximately .5
mile to the beginning point.
Signed: October 1, 1997.
John W. Magaw,
Director.
[FR Doc. 97-27692 Filed 10-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
