[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 175 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47053-47061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22486]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
27 CFR Part 9
[T.D. ATF-366; RE: Notice No. 801]
RIN 1512-AA07
The St. Helena Viticultural Area (94F-015P)
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule, Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a viticultural area in Napa
County, California, to be known as ``St. Helena.'' The petition was
submitted by Mr. Charles A. Carpy, Chairman of the St. Helena
Appellation Committee. The establishment of viticultural areas and the
subsequent use of viticultural area names as appellations of origin in
wine labeling and advertising will help consumers better identify the
wines they may purchase, and will help winemakers distinguish their
products from wines made in other areas.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lou Blake, Wine, Beer and Spirits
Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20226 (202-927-8210).
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.
Section 4.25a(e)(1), Title 27 CFR, defines an American viticultural
area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by
geographical 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 features (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 the features which can be found on United States
Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and
(e) A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map with the boundaries
prominently marked.
Rulemaking Proceeding
Petition
On March 9, 1994, ATF received a petition from Mr. Charles A.
Carpy, Chairman of the St. Helena Appellation Committee, proposing to
establish a new viticultural area in Napa County, California, to be
known as ``St. Helena.'' The St. Helena Appellation Committee is
composed of various vineyard and winery owners located throughout the
St. Helena area. The proposed St. Helena viticultural area is located
approximately 16 miles northwest of the city of Napa. It is located
totally within the larger and previously established
[[Page 47054]]
Napa Valley viticultural area. The St. Helena viticultural area covers
approximately 9,060 acres, and is densely planted to vines. There are
over 30 wineries within the area. The petition provided sufficient
information to show that the proposed area meets the regulatory
requirements discussed previously. This information is shown beginning
with the section entitled ``Evidence That Viticultural Area Name Is
Widely Known.'' Mr. Charles Sullivan, Napa Valley historian, provided
the petitioner with most of the historical information concerning the
St. Helena area that is covered in the petition whereas Dr. Deborah
Elliott-Fisk of the University of California provided the petitioner
with most of the information in the petition concerning soils, geology
and physical geography of the St. Helena area.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to Mr. Carpy's petition, ATF published a notice of
proposed rulemaking, Notice No. 801, in the Federal Register on
November 4, 1994 (59 FR 55226), proposing the establishment of the St.
Helena viticultural area. The notice requested comments from all
interested persons by February 2, 1995.
Comments to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Six comments were received in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking (Notice No. 801). Three commenters--Mr. W. Andrew
Beckstoffer of Beckstoffer Vineyards, Mr. Richard E. Walton of Beaulieu
Vineyard, and Mr. Thomas Leonardini of Whitehall Lane Winery--state
that a certain portion of the proposed viticultural area should not, at
this time, be included within the boundaries of the St. Helena
viticultural area. The portion of the proposed St. Helena viticultural
area which these three commenters want excluded starts at the
intersection of Zinfandel Lane with Highway 29 on the southern boundary
of the area, then in a westerly direction along Zinfandel Lane to where
it intersects with the north fork of Bale Slough, then in a
northwesterly direction along the north fork of Bale Slough to where it
intersects with the southwesterly straight line projection of Inglewood
Avenue, then in a southwesterly direction along the straight line
projection of Inglewood Avenue to the 500 foot contour line on the
western side of the area, then along the 500-foot contour line in a
northwesterly direction to Sulphur Creek, then in a southeasterly and
then a northeasterly direction along Sulphur Creek until it intersects
with Highway 29, then in a southeasterly direction along Highway 29
until it intersects with Zinfandel Lane, the point of beginning.
These three commenters feel that there is simply not sufficient
precise data or local agreement at this time to justify a choice for
this area. They feel that within a relatively short time, say five
years, the grapegrowers, winemakers and local residents will so clarify
the wine characteristics and local reference for the wine consumer that
the viticultural area designation of this area will become clear to
all. At this future time, according to these three commenters, the area
would either be added to the St. Helena or Rutherford viticultural area
depending on what the evidence shows. All three feel that the evidence
at that time will show that this area most closely resembles the
Rutherford viticultural area.
Mr. Beckstoffer states that as part of the Rutherford viticultural
area process, he submitted detailed data regarding the geological
features, elevation, soils, rainfall, and geology of this area. Mr.
Beckstoffer indicates that he wants this previous data to be included
in his petition requesting that this area not be included in any
viticultural area until some future time when more information is
available.
Mr. Beckstoffer states that prior testimony at the Rutherford
viticultural area hearing shows that there are no significant
differences in rainfall, elevation or soils in this area from that to
the north, St. Helena, or to the south, Rutherford. Mr. Beckstoffer
indicates that there was significant controversy, however, regarding
the underlying geology of this area and the area to the north and
south. Mr. Beckstoffer states that the geological features upon which a
delimited grape growing area is defined as a viticultural area do not
support the inclusion of this area in either St. Helena or Rutherford
to the exclusion of the other. Consequently, Mr. Beckstoffer feels that
the features of this area could presently support inclusion in either
Rutherford or St. Helena.
Mr. Beckstoffer also states that this area should not be considered
a part of the proposed St. Helena viticultural area just because a
certain portion of the area in question is within the municipal limits
of the city of St. Helena. Mr. Beckstoffer indicates that it is his
understanding that the approved Spring Mountain and Howell Mountain
viticultural areas include areas within the city of St. Helena. In
addition, the proposed St. Helena viticultural area includes areas both
within and outside the city of St. Helena. Furthermore, according to
Mr. Beckstoffer, the municipal boundaries of the city of St. Helena
have recently been amended and will undoubtedly be amended again in the
future. Consequently, Mr. Beckstoffer states that the area in question
should not be included or excluded from a viticultural area based on
whether a portion of the area is located within the municipal limits of
the city of St. Helena.
In summary, Mr. Beckstoffer states that the area in question is a
very important grapegrowing area of the Napa Valley claimed for both
the Rutherford and St. Helena areas. He further states that the
geological features, history and local designation of this area are not
precise enough at this time to define the area as part of Rutherford or
St. Helena. However, Mr. Beckstoffer feels that with sufficient time,
the factors identifying this area in question will be sufficient to
justify the inclusion of the area in either Rutherford or St. Helena.
Mr. Beckstoffer feels that the current consumer awareness and wine
characteristics of grapes produced from this area seem to indicate that
the area should be included in Rutherford but that additional time
should help determine with greater clarity exactly what viticultural
area this area in question belongs in. At some future time, according
to Mr. Beckstoffer, this area could be assigned to either Rutherford or
St. Helena with much more clarity, precision and general acceptance.
Another commenter--Mr. William A. Hayne--states that he has a
vineyard in the area in question and that he does not agree with the
proposal to exclude this area from the proposed St. Helena viticultural
area. Mr. Hayne further states that viticultural areas in the Napa
Valley seem to be destined to be divided up more or less by post office
regions and that he wishes to be included in the St. Helena
viticultural area as is presently provided for in the notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Another commenter--Mr. Richard W. Forman of Forman Vineyard--states
that he is very close to the eastern boundary of the proposed St.
Helena viticultural area and feels that Forman Vineyard should be
included within the St. Helena area. In fact, Mr. Forman states that
his winery and vineyard are located within the city limits of St.
Helena. He further states his property is located on the lower toe
slopes of the eastern Howell Mountain range and as such, has an
exposure which looks across the Silverado Trail near Meadowood Lane and
into the center of St. Helena. Mr.
[[Page 47055]]
Forman indicates that his vineyard, originally established on what was
called the Stonebridge property, is clearly more closely associated
with its near valley floor neighbors physically, climatologically and
geologically, than the further removed and proposed fans of Pratt
Valley, Deer Park and Spring Valley. He further indicates that he
agrees with Mr. Sullivan's statement in the St. Helena petition that it
is difficult to differentiate exactly, on a historical basis, between
the 400-600 foot contour on the eastern slopes of the proposed St.
Helena viticultural area.
Mr. Forman states that Mr. Sullivan indicates in the petition that
the actual Howell Mountain influence of differing climatology does not
come into effect until one reaches well above the 600 foot elevation.
Mr. Forman states that his vineyard property does not extend beyond the
600-foot contour line and therefore has a very similar climate to the
valley floor. And finally, Mr. Forman states that, on a geological
basis, his soils closely resemble the soils found in the Phelps Home
Ranch 3 Corral III vineyard, noted in petition exhibit No. 30 and
located in Spring Valley, which is within the proposed boundaries of
the St. Helena viticultural area. Mr. Forman states that this close
similarity between soils should establish that his vineyard soils are
consistent with other St. Helena district soils and therefore his
vineyard property should be included as part of the St. Helena
viticultural area.
Mr. Forman indicates that the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) soil map identifies his vineyard property's soil as
a Butte Stony Loam and mentions that it is widely found along the lower
eastern toe slopes between Deer Park and Rutherford Cross Roads, again
suggesting that this would indeed conform as a characteristic soil type
of the area. Mr. Forman states that the climate surrounding his
property is quite like that found above the Silverado Trail from Howell
Mountain Road to Deer Park Road, particularly in so far as his property
is situated within one-fourth mile of the Silverado Trail and has an
exposure and elevation only moderately different than these adjacent
valley floor locations.
In summary, Mr. Forman states that because of his location within
the city limits of St. Helena, because of his exposure and proximity to
the valley floor, and because of his vineyard's geology, he feels that
his property should be included within the St. Helena viticultural
area.
The last commenter, Mr. Chuck Carpy, Chairman of the St. Helena
Appellation Committee, states that his comment is in response to the
two proposed boundary amendments which were submitted. In response to
Mr. Forman's proposal to extend the boundary of the St. Helena
viticultural area to include his vineyard property, Mr. Carpy states
that the St. Helena Appellation Committee does not have any objection
to this proposal. Mr. Carpy states that Mr. Forman's vineyard is
located within the city limits of St. Helena and, to the best of his
knowledge, is split by the proposed 400 foot contour line. Mr. Carpy
indicates that the petitioners have reviewed Mr. Forman's data and find
the soil types and geology to be consistent with those of the other
toe-slopes of the Vaca (or Silverado) Range in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. Carpy states that he has received information from Mr. Forman that
indicates that Mr. Forman's vineyard property contains large deposits
of old, uplifted Napa Riverbed materials, which suggests that the Napa
River channel ran through the area historically. In this sense,
according to Mr. Carpy, the area proposed for inclusion by Mr. Forman
appears to be similar to the area on the eastern toe-slopes of
Oakville, which were added to that viticultural area in the final rule
establishing the Oakville viticultural area.
In addition, Mr. Carpy states that the petitioners have no
objection with the inclusion of Mr. Forman's property in the St. Helena
viticultural area since the proposed boundary expansion is small and
the current boundary works a hardship on Mr. Forman because his
vineyards are split.
In regard to Mr. Beckstoffer's proposed boundary amendment, Mr.
Carpy states that the petitioners are opposed to any further change in
the boundaries of the proposed St. Helena viticultural area. Mr. Carpy
states that the present rulemaking concerns the St. Helena viticultural
area and should not be used as an indirect method of appealing ATF's
final rule on the Rutherford viticultural area. Mr. Carpy points out
that there was no appeal to U.S. District Court of the Bureau's
decision to exclude from Rutherford the area north of Zinfandel Lane,
west of Highway 29, and south of Sulphur Creek (the area in question).
Mr. Carpy states that it is clear from Mr. Beckstoffer's comment that
Mr. Beckstoffer did not agree with the decision made regarding the
establishment of the boundaries of the Rutherford viticultural area and
consequently is trying to delay action on the area in question in hopes
of eventually getting this area included within the Rutherford
viticultural area.
Mr. Carpy states that ATF made its decision on the Rutherford
viticultural area in July of 1993. He states that the argument that
this decision should be revisited in the future provides no legitimate
basis for opposing the St. Helena viticultural area petition. Mr. Carpy
states that under the applicable regulations, ATF is bound to decide
whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the St. Helena
viticultural area as proposed by the petitioners. Mr. Carpy observes
that Mr. Beckstoffer concedes such evidence exists when he states,
``The geological features upon which a delimited grape growing area are
defined as a viticultural area * * * could support inclusion [of the
area in question] in either [the Rutherford or the St. Helena
Viticultural] Area.''
On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Carpy states that all the
requirements for the establishment of the St. Helena viticultural area
have been met in the case of the area in question. Specifically, the
name identification requirement has been met not only by the fact that
a portion of the area is within city limits of St. Helena but also by
numerous citations in the modern wine press, by historical documents
pertaining to the so-called St. Helena District of the late 1800s and
by local name recognition. According to Mr. Carpy, it is inconceivable
to the petitioners that the properties of George Crane, who is widely
acknowledged as one of the founding fathers of St. Helena (Crane Park
in the city of St. Helena honors him), and John Lewelling, who also was
prominently identified with St. Helena, could be considered as part of
the Rutherford viticultural area. Mr. Carpy states that the petitioners
have met their burden of proof. Mr. Carpy then quotes from ATF's final
rule on the Rutherford viticultural area with respect to the area in
question:
Proponents of a northern boundary for Rutherford that is further
north than Zinfandel Lane did not submit any evidence that this area
between Zinfandel Lane and Sulphur Creek has ever been known, either
currently or historically, as Rutherford. The Rutherford and
Oakville Appellation Committee, on the other hand, submitted
numerous maps and other name evidence which tends to show that this
area has always been considered to be part of the greater St. Helena
area.
Later in the final rule establishing the Rutherford viticultural
area, it was stated that ``Most current and historical maps, as well as
other name evidence, suggest that Zinfandel Lane is the most
appropriate dividing line between Rutherford and St. Helena.'' Mr.
Carpy indicates that to reject Zinfandel Lane as the most appropriate
dividing line
[[Page 47056]]
between Rutherford and St. Helena would belie history and mislead
consumers.
Mr. Carpy requests that all testimony and documentation from the
Rutherford proceeding which pertain to the area in question be included
in the record of the present rulemaking.
Mr. Carpy states that with regard to the required geographic
evidence, the petitioners have placed the entire Sulphur Creek alluvial
fan in the St. Helena viticultural area. The petitioners' expert
geographer and soil scientist, Deborah Elliott-Fisk, describes that fan
in the reporter's transcript of the public hearing on Rutherford, on
page 48, as the drainage basin of Sulphur Canyon and Heath Canyon,
including Spring Mountain, which ``extends through the town of St.
Helena at least up to the vicinity of where the Beringer Winery is
today.''
Mr. Carpy states that the area in question splits the Sulphur Creek
alluvial fan at Highway 29 (on an east-west axis) and at Sulphur Creek
(north-south), thereby including in the St. Helena appellation only a
portion of this geomorphic unit. Mr. Carpy indicates that anything less
than such artificial bisection of the Sulphur Creek alluvial fan would
place historical St. Helena wineries like Louis Martini and Beringer
Vineyards in the Rutherford viticultural area. Mr. Carpy states that
there is no explanation or evidence of how or why the area in question
is viticulturally distinct from the area east of Highway 29 or from any
other portion of St. Helena.
Mr. Carpy indicates that both before and during the Rutherford
viticultural area proceeding, Ms. Elliott-Fisk conducted extensive
field research throughout the Napa Valley, including the area in
question. Ms. Elliott-Fisk concluded in her comments on the Rutherford
viticultural area that ``the Sulphur Canyon Fan should be left for a
future St. Helena viticultural area, as it has rocky soils (with a
higher percentage of boulders and large cobbles) and is dominated by
rhyolite and other volcanic lithologies with a soil matrix of fine
sands and secondary clays, providing for moderate to moderately high
vine vigor under slightly warmer climates and increased precipitation
than in the Rutherford region.'' Mr. Carpy states that the petitioners
now seek to follow through on ATF's decision in the Rutherford
proceeding by placing the entire Sulphur Creek alluvial fan in the St.
Helena viticultural area.
ATF Boundary Decisions
After thoroughly reviewing all the comments submitted in response
to the notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 801) on the St. Helena
viticultural area, ATF has made the following decisions concerning the
two requests for boundary changes:
1. Forman Proposal. ATF agrees that the Forman vineyard property is
split by the boundaries proposed in Notice No. 801 and that the
property is located within the city limits of St. Helena. In addition,
both Mr. Forman and the petitioners agree that the soil types and
geology of this vineyard property are consistent with those of other
areas located within the proposed St. Helena viticultural area. For
these reasons, ATF has determined that the Forman vineyard property
should be included within the boundaries of the St. Helena viticultural
area. Consequently, Mr. Forman's proposed boundary change is being
adopted in the descriptive section of this final rule.
2. Beckstoffer Proposal. ATF believes that the St. Helena
petitioners have provided adequate historical, name, and geological
evidence to include the area in question in the St. Helena viticultural
area. As part of the Rutherford viticultural area process, ATF reviewed
all the evidence presented during the comment period and the public
hearing to determine the best boundaries for the Rutherford
viticultural area. As a result of that review, it was determined that
the best dividing line between Rutherford and St. Helena, for
viticultural purposes, was Zinfandel Lane. Mr. Beckstoffer has not
presented any new evidence which would lead us to the conclusion that
the area in question should be part of the Rutherford viticultural
area. To the contrary, all historical and name evidence which we have
reviewed suggests that this area should be considered as part of the
St. Helena area. In addition, the northern boundary of the Rutherford
viticultural area was largely determined on the basis of where the
southern edge of the Sulphur Canyon Fan approximately ends. Since it
was determined that the Sulphur Canyon Fan ends somewhere just south of
Zinfandel Lane, it was decided that the northern boundary of the
Rutherford viticultural should be Zinfandel Lane. Therefore, since the
Sulphur Canyon Fan includes the area north of Zinfandel Lane on both
the east and west sides of Highway 29, we have determined that the area
in question should be included within the St. Helena viticultural area.
In addition, we see no benefit to delaying a decision on this area
for 5 years or more. While it is possible that such a delay could
produce some evidence that certain wine characteristics and local
reference for the wine consumer might point toward a Rutherford
designation for some wines from this area, it would appear that such
evidence would at most be limited and subject to dispute. In addition,
there is no current evidence available which would be a basis for
rejecting the petitioners' current southern boundary proposal. Since
the petitioners have provided adequate evidence for their boundary
proposal and since no new evidence has been submitted which would cause
us to find otherwise, we have decided to adopt the petitioners'
boundary proposal as specified in Notice No. 801 along with Mr.
Forman's proposed boundary change.
Evidence That Viticultural Area Name Is Widely Known
Data prepared by Mr. Charles Sullivan for the petitioners provides
the following historical information.
The town of St. Helena was founded by Henry Still, who bought land
from the Edward Bale family in 1855. By 1858 there was a school house
and a little Baptist church. Four years later Professor William Brewer
of the Whitney party called it a ``pretty little village with fifty or
more houses . . . nestled among grand old oaks.'' Early winemakers in
the St. Helena area included Charles Krug and George Belden Crane. At
the end of the 1879 vintage the San Francisco Post ran an article on
northern California wines which noted the flavor characteristics of
Napa clarets. This article was copied by the St. Helena Star which
predicted that there would be 2,000 acres of grapes planted in the Napa
Valley in 1880. According to Mr. Sullivan, the final total was closer
to 3,000, and concentrated in the St. Helena area.
As early as 1869, San Francisco's Alta California was making
reference to a ``St. Helena district,'' as did the Pacific Rural Press.
These were references to vineyard plantings in the area. In 1872 the
Napa Reporter made reference to the boom in vineyard land around St.
Helena. The Alta California ran an article on the area in 1878,
treating St. Helena as a specific district with a great reputation. By
then Charles Krug, the Beringers, Crane, John Lewelling, H. A. Pellet,
and 14 other producers had built cellars in the St. Helena area.
In 1875 Krug and Pellet organized the producers and growers in the
district, a move that culminated in the formation of the St. Helena
Viticultural Club on January 22, 1876. According to Mr. Sullivan,
others outside the district
[[Page 47057]]
could join, but it was a local St. Helena organization. In 1880 the
Club constructed Vintners Hall, a two story building with a reading
room, meeting rooms, and a social hall upstairs.
Mr. Sullivan states that by the end of the 1870s there was no
question concerning Napa's special reputation as a winegrowing region,
or about St. Helena's as a discrete district in that region. As support
for this statement, Mr. Sullivan cites the Alta California which
concluded in an article published in 1880 that ``Napa is now the
leading wine-growing county of California, and * * * St. Helena has
become the center of the most prosperous wine district in the State.''
According to Mr. Sullivan, by the turn of the century Napa prices
were still higher than those of other districts, but the special
position accorded St. Helena wines had ceased to exist. The popular
image of the wines of Oakville, Rutherford, Larkmead, and Howell
Mountain had ended the perception of St. Helena wines standing above
all others. After Prohibition, the regional association of the leading
Napa Valley producers was far from foremost in consumers' minds and in
the minds of wine writers according to Mr. Sullivan. However, Mr.
Sullivan states that more recently there has been a tendency for wine
writers to make reference to the St. Helena ``district'' and to its
wines, particularly to its Cabernet Sauvignons.
In addition to the historical name information mentioned above, the
``St. Helena'' name appears on a U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series map
entitled ``St. Helena Quadrangle'' which includes the city of St.
Helena and much of its surrounding area.
Evidence of Boundaries
According to the petition, there have never been precise historic
boundaries for the St. Helena viticultural district. However, the
petitioners state that history does provide an imprecise ``St. Helena
District'' within the geographic structure of State winegrowing
established by the first Board of State Viticultural Commissioners in
the 1880s. According to the petition, the State was divided into
districts, one being Napa, which included Napa, Solano, and Contra
Costa Counties. Charles Krug was the first commissioner for the
district in 1880. Napa County was then divided into administrative
districts: Napa (City), Yountville, St. Helena, and Calistoga. These
were not considered viticultural districts at the time. The St. Helena
District included the vineyards of Howell Mountain, most of Rutherford,
and Larkmead. This is discussed in E.C. Priber's report to the Board in
1893. Even Chiles and Conn Valleys were included in the St. Helena
District, although Priber gave separate statistics for these areas.
Although the wineries and vineyardists in the Priber report are
listed in administrative districts, Priber's man in the field, A.
Warren Robinson, asked each where his or her operation was located, and
the answer was given as a place, not necessarily a post office. Bernard
Ehlers said he lived at Lodi Station. Mrs. Lillie Coit listed Larkmead.
According to the petitioner, such data make it possible to make an
attempt to draw historically accurate lines.
A more accurate listing of viticultural districts was given by
Charles Krug in his report of 1887. He traces the development of each
district in Napa County since 1881, by acreage, production, and type of
grape vines. Krug listed Yountville, Oakville, Rutherford, St. Helena,
Spring Mountain, Howell Mountain, Calistoga and five others. Although
he did not include a map, the precision of his statistics indicates
that he and others had the limits of these districts in mind.
From the information discussed above, the petitioner has tried to
plot the northern and southern boundaries of the St. Helena
viticultural area. From a historical point of view, the petitioner
states that any one of three landmarks could be used as the northern
boundary of the St. Helena viticultural area. These landmarks include
Ritchie Creek, Bale Lane, and Big Tree Road. However, from a practical,
as well as historical point of view, Bale Lane is the best choice.
The southern boundary of the St. Helena viticultural area was
discussed at length during the December 9, 1992, ATF public hearing
held in Napa, California, concerning the northern boundary of the
Rutherford viticultural area. From the information submitted at that
hearing, it was determined that Zinfandel Avenue, known locally as
Zinfandel Lane, was the best northern boundary for the Rutherford
viticultural area. Consequently, Zinfandel Avenue (Zinfandel Lane) is
appropriate as the southern boundary of the adjacent St. Helena
viticultural area.
The southeast boundary of the St. Helena appellation includes the
Spring Valley area since this area was included in the St. Helena area
on the 1895 ``Official Map of the County of Napa.'' On this map, the
properties of George Mee and Antonio Rossi (Spring Valley) were listed
as being in the St. Helena district whereas Charles Scheggia, just to
the south, listed himself as being in Rutherford.
According to the petitioner, the western boundary of the St. Helena
viticultural area is not strictly delineated by historical custom. The
petitioner states that this western boundary should be dictated by the
eastern boundary of the adjacent Spring Mountain District viticultural
area which utilizes the 400-foot contour line. The petitioner states
that although some people might draw the western boundary of the St.
Helena viticultural area at the 500 or 600-foot contour line, the 400-
foot contour line defies no historical precedent and prevents the
overlapping of the St. Helena viticultural area with the Spring
Mountain District viticultural area.
In regard to the eastern boundary, historical records indicate that
Conn Valley is a separate area and should not be included in the St.
Helena viticultural area. These records indicate, however, that Pratt
Valley is clearly part of the St. Helena area from the location of the
Pratt and Chabot wine growing properties. In addition, the Crystal
Springs Road area and Dago Valley should be included, due more to
recent developments there rather than earlier history. However, the
petitioner states that the old Rossini property, where the historic
Burgess-Souverain Winery is located today, and the Leunenberger
property, where the original Sutter Home-Ballantine Winery was located
(today Deer Park Winery), should not be included because they are
located on the lower slopes of Howell Mountain rather than in the St.
Helena area.
The petitioner uses mostly the 400-foot contour line and a short
portion of Howell Mountain Road and a longer portion of Conn Valley
Road to delineate the eastern boundary of the proposed St. Helena
viticultural area.
Geographical Features
Data prepared by Dr. Elliott-Fisk in support of the petition
provides the following geographical information.
Climate. The proposed St. Helena viticultural area lies within a
relatively narrow and constricted portion of the upper Napa Valley
proper. There exists a subtle interaction of climatic factors which
affect grapes grown in this valley floor area. These subtle climatic
influences are part of a continuum across the entire floor of the Napa
Valley.
The Napa Valley proper is classified as a coastal valley. Along the
valley floor from Napa to Calistoga, there are pronounced mesoclimatic
variations which relate to the penetration of marine influences from
San Pablo Bay and, to a lesser extent, to the rise in elevation as one
proceeds up Napa
[[Page 47058]]
Valley. This marine air incursion is caused by warming of the valley
floor and surrounding hillsides during the daylight hours of the
growing season. This warming land mass causes the air in the area to
rise, creating pressure gradients which draw in marine air off of San
Pablo Bay to the south. During the growing season, this phenomenon
generally begins in the early afternoon and continues into the evening.
Due to proximity to the bay, the areas in the southern portion of the
valley receive the most direct impact of these pressure gradient winds.
These winds have a cooling effect throughout the Napa Valley.
During the grape growing season, this cooling plays an important
role in the development of the grapes by allowing them to better retain
their natural acidity which is critical in the production of high
quality wines, according to Dr. Elliott-Fisk. In the St. Helena
viticultural area, this cooling effect is moderated compared to the
areas further south. However, while the St. Helena area has relatively
warm conditions, it is the daily maximum extremes, for which the area
to the north (Calistoga) is better known, that distinguish the St.
Helena and Calistoga areas.
Dr. Elliott-Fisk indicates that traditionally, the dividing line
between the area of Calistoga's higher daily extremes and St. Helena's
warm coastal climate has been the section of land around Bale Lane. It
is at this point that the Napa Valley and Napa River take a pronounced
directional change of course from north/northwesterly to more westerly.
To the north of Bale Lane, the exposure of the valley floor to the sun
also is more directly aligned than to the south where there is more
shading.
The area to the north of the St. Helena viticultural area,
particularly around the city of Calistoga, is also affected by a
secondary marine air incursion, far less dramatic than that off of San
Pablo Bay, which penetrates the upper Napa Valley through the Knights
Valley area. This marine influence, according to Dr. Elliott-Fisk, does
not typically penetrate as far south as the St. Helena viticultural
area. When present, these moist, cooling winds serve to moderate the
generally hotter temperatures in Calistoga, making this area ideal for
growing premium wine grapes.
Dr. Elliott-Fisk also finds that there are significant climatic
differences between the St. Helena viticultural area and the
surrounding mountains. To the east of St. Helena lies Howell Mountain
and to the west is Spring Mountain. These mountain areas range in
elevation from 400 to 2,600 feet for Spring Mountain and from 1,400 to
2,400 feet for Howell Mountain. On average, temperatures fall along the
valley floor approximately 2.8 degrees Fahrenheit for each 1,000 foot
fall in elevation.
The mountain areas with south or southwest slopes, such as those
generally found in the Howell Mountain viticultural area, receive
approximately 20 percent more solar radiation during the growing season
compared to the valley floor. Northeast and northwest slopes, such as
those that typically occur in the Spring Mountain District viticultural
area, receive approximately 20 percent less solar radiation than those
found on the valley floor in the St. Helena viticultural area. In
addition to these differences related to aspect, the relative absence
of fog in the higher altitudes increases the solar radiation there
compared to the valley floor which often is covered by early morning
fog.
According to Dr. Elliott-Fisk, precipitation has been more
important in the formation of topography and soils in the Napa Valley
than in the definition of distinct climate zones. Outside of annual
physiological water needs which are almost exclusively augmented by
irrigation, precipitation directly affects grape vines during late
spring and early fall, which are the critical periods of the growing
and harvest seasons. Cooler areas, those generally found to the south
of the St. Helena appellation, are more negatively affected by such
conditions.
Soils, Geology and Physical Geography
The St. Helena viticultural area is in the northern Napa Valley and
is defined by Dr. Elliott-Fisk as the valley floor area and lower
mountain slopes (i.e., toe-slopes) from Zinfandel Lane in the south to
Bale Lane in the north.
According to Dr. Elliott-Fisk, the geology of the St. Helena area
is characterized by steep mountain fronts composed of the (1)
Franciscan Formation (largely sandstones, mudstones and various
metamorphic inclusions) overlain by the moderate thicknesses of Sonoma
Volcanics on the west side in the Mayacamas Range, and (2) deep flows
of Sonoma Volcanics, volcanic vents, and volcanic domes over Great
Valley sandstones on the east side in the Vaca Range. Both mountain
slopes have been faulted and heavily eroded, with much of this activity
believed to be synonymous with the formation of the Sonoma Volcanics in
the last 2-5 million years.
Dr. Elliott-Fisk further states that the topography of the Napa
Valley floor is largely the product of (1) the marine incursion of San
Pablo Bay, and consequent marine erosion and deposit, (2) tectonic
uplift and land displacement along faults and fold structures (e.g.,
anticlines), (3) bedrock resistance to erosion, (4) slope stability,
and (5) discharge volumes of the Napa River and its tributaries. The
St. Helena viticultural area, extending from Bale Lane on the north to
Zinfandel Lane on the south, has a fairly uniform, steep gradient (as
compared to the entire Napa Valley floor), indicating that it is a zone
of erosion of a former more powerful Napa River. The valley in this
area is narrow and is almost entirely the product of river erosion,
unlike any other stretch of the valley floor. The one break in gradient
occurs where the river turns southward near Big Tree Road (just south
of Bale Lane) and exerts more force to cut through bedrock. Thus,
although alluvial fans extend across the valley floor from their
tributary canyons to the Napa River, the fans are small and relatively
young compared to the rest of Napa Valley. Sulphur Creek fan is the
largest of the group, as it issues from a very large drainage basin.
Fans of the eastern side of the proposed appellation are very small,
largely due to the resistance of obsidian (i.e., volcanic glass)
bedrock here and small tributary basin size.
The topographic uniformity of the St. Helena viticultural area is
further substantiated by climatological data and bioclimatic maps.
Growing degree-days (i.e., temperature regime), according to Dr.
Elliott-Fisk, are very uniform along this stretch of the valley floor
and lower slopes, averaging just under 3600 degree-days. Mean annual
precipitation is 35-38 inches. Just north of the northern boundary of
the St. Helena viticultural area (e.g., around Dunaweal Lane), the
vegetation changes from Valley Oak Savanna to Mixed Hardwood Woodland.
These gradients of climate and vegetation from south to north up Napa
Valley, according to Dr. Elliott-Fisk, further support the designation
of viticultural areas, as climate is an important factor influencing
vine growth and fruit characteristics, with natural vegetation telling
the viticulturalist what vine production will be like.
Soils and Geomorphology of the Napa Valley
Dr. Elliott-Fisk states that soils can be consistently identified
and mapped in Napa Valley through knowledge of the geomorphology (i.e.,
landforms and landform history) of the area. These soil differences are
relevant viticulturally and can be used in the delimitation of
viticultural areas. This soil and geomorphic mapping, which is based on
[[Page 47059]]
very detailed field and laboratory studies, produces soil units that
are similar to those shown in the Napa County Soil Survey (USDA-Soil
Conservation Survey), but with more detail, precision, and most
importantly, a different classification scheme, according to the
petitioner. The resolution of the mapping of Napa Valley's soils has
increased from the 1938 survey (and the old Marbut soil classification
scheme) to the newer 1977 survey (using the new 7th Approximation
system of soil classification) to a more detailed depiction of Napa
Valley's soils based on an increased understanding of (1) the
geomorphological history of the Napa Valley, and (2) the importance of
soil parent material and time as soil-forming factors. There are many
more soil types (or potential soil series) in Napa County than the Napa
County Soil Survey depicts according to the petitioner.
Dr. Elliott-Fisk further notes that a geomorphic (landscape)
surface of a given age will have soils of the same type across it. This
is because soil formation is controlled by five factors (known as the
soil-forming factors): climate, biota (plants and animals), parent
material, relief (topography) and time. The petitioner states that much
of the variation of soil types in Napa County is due to variation in
the parent material and time factors. Different soil types will be
derived from sedimentary bedrock versus volcanic bedrock, whether or
not these soils are upland residual soils (with weathering and soil
formation in place or in situ) or transportation/depositional soils
(with soil formation beginning once river or other sediments are
deposited). Alluvial soils of different ages (old versus young) will
also differ significantly.
On any particular geomorphic surface (such as the Sulphur Creek
fan), the parent material, relief and time factors are held constant,
with the soils very similar (if not identical) across this surface. For
depositional landforms (e.g., mudflow lobes, river terraces, alluvial
fan units, etc.), the older deposits will have more strongly formed
soils. If a geomorphic surface is disturbed by erosion or deposition,
its soil will be altered (if not destroyed), with a new soil then
forming.
In Napa Valley, according to Dr. Elliott-Fisk, distinct differences
are seen between hillside soils and valley floor soils, at least in
most situations. Hillside soils tend to be formed from bedrock and are
shallow, whereas valley floor soils tend to be formed from alluvium,
colluvium or bay deposits and are often deep. As Napa Valley has been
tectonically active, however, these deeper, depositional soils are
occasionally found up on the hillsides, uplifted above the valley
floor. It is important to separate these depositional hillside soils
from residual bedrock soils. They have much higher water-holding
capacities and deeper rooting depths, influencing vine growth
significantly.
Dr. Elliott-Fisk further indicates that the floor of Napa Valley
(excluding the bedrock ``islands'' which form small hills) has soils
formed on (1) alluvial fans of various lithologies, textures, and sizes
emerging from tributary watersheds towards the Napa River, (2) alluvial
floodplains of various ages along the Napa River and the lower reaches
of its tributaries (such as Sulphur Creek), and (3) bay deposits of
various types, formed when San Pablo Bay extended into the valley
proper. The alluvial fans in particular show marked contrasts in soil
types north-south and east-west in the valley as a function of their
(1) watershed or drainage basin geology and (2) stream gradient (i.e.,
topography). Dr. Elliott-Fisk concludes that the soils scientist then
expects to find one soil series on fans derived from sedimentary
bedrock and another on fans derived from volcanic bedrock.
Geomorphic Units of the St. Helena Viticultural Area
The valley floor of the St. Helena viticultural area is covered by
a series of small fans and contains important areas of Napa River
floodplain. Dr. Elliott-Fisk has described the geomorphic units as
follows:
North to South on West Side of Valley:
(1) Ritchie Creek Fan (the southern edge of it extending south
of Bale Lane into the viticultural area); principally in the area
north of St. Helena;
(2) Mill Creek Fan;
(3) Hirsch Creek Fan;
(4) York Creek Fan;
(5) Sulphur Creek Fan; and
(6) Bear Canyon Fan Complex (in approved Rutherford viticultural
area).
North to South on East Side of Valley:
(1) Simmons Canyon Fan (north of the St. Helena viticultural
area);
(2) Dutch Henry and Biter Creek Fan Complex (north of the St.
Helena viticultural area, reaching almost to Bale Lane);
(3) Unnamed Fan west of Bell Canyon Reservoir and Crystal
Springs Road;
(4) Base of Pratt Valley (very small fan);
(5) Base of Deer Park (unnamed tributary; small fan);
(6) Base of Spring Valley (very small fan; mostly within Spring
Valley); and
(7) Conn Creek Fan Complex (in approved Rutherford viticultural
area).
Napa River Floodplain and River Terraces:
(1) Current incised channel of the Napa River;
(2) Current floodplain of the Napa River; and
(3) Older floodplains of the Napa River at higher elevations.
[These landforms follow the channel of the Napa River, except
for older terraces along the hillsides, which are largely obscured
by dense hillside woodland and forest; these terraces are discovered
through intensive field studies.]
Dr. Elliott-Fisk notes that the geomorphic depositional units
(i.e., landforms) in the St. Helena viticultural area are composed
almost exclusively of volcanic lithologies (around 85-90 percent
volcanics typically, occasionally dropping to 70 percent on parts of
the Sulphur Creek fan, with the remainder sedimentary and metamorphic
inclusions from the bedrock underlying the Sonoma Volcanics). The upper
part of the Sulphur Creek Basin contains small units of sandstone and
metamorphic lithologies exposed at the surface through faulting and
slope failure. Despite this, volcanic rhyolitic tuff, rhyolite, dacite
and andesite are by far the dominant surficial geologies, compared to
the Bear Canyon Fan Complex to the south which is 30 percent or less
volcanics and the remainder sedimentary.
Dr. Elliott-Fisk further observes that although several types of
volcanic rocks compose the St. Helena hillside, the most widespread
(and as such, ubiquitous) units are volcanic ash-flows, referred to as
tuffs, with occasional volcanic mudflows. The matrix is rhyolitic in
composition, with incorporated clasts of obsidian, rhyolite, andesite,
dacite and tuff. Occasional metamorphic clasts of cobble or smaller
size are seen. This geologic parent material is slightly acidic to
acidic, with water-holding capacity of tuffaceous bedrock units
moderate. This potential soil parent material is brought down both
slopes to the west and east of the valley floor by hillside erosion,
runoff, and tributary streamflow.
According to Dr. Elliott-Fisk, the Napa River has incised through
these fan deposits discharging on the valley floor and migrated as a
consequence of the resistance of these deposits versus its own stream
power. The Napa River floodplain, and its associated recent terraces,
varies in width throughout this section of Napa Valley but has formed
important terraces along the eastern valley edge. Distinct breaks in
the natural vegetation are seen at the terrace/alluvial fan transition,
as the terraces have more fertile soils with a greater water-holding
capacity. As the width of the valley floor in the St. Helena area is on
the average less (e.g., more narrow) than anywhere else in the
[[Page 47060]]
Napa Valley, these terraces form less viticultural acreage than in the
southern or middle sections of Napa Valley.
The lower hillside slopes below the 400-foot elevation are
difficult to map on a broad scale depicting geomorphic surfaces. This
is largely a function of abrupt changes in slope angle and vegetation
type, which influence long-term slope stability. Small areas of
uplifted depositional surfaces (alluvial fans and stream floodplain
terraces) were found across these lower slopes in the St. Helena area,
however.
Soils of the St. Helena Viticultural Area
With regard to the soils within the St. Helena viticultural area,
Dr. Elliott-Fisk states that the Sonoma Volcanics rim all sides of the
valley in the St. Helena area, and as such the depositional valley
floor soils (which may be very bouldery deposits across alluvial fans
or finer, but still gravelly deposits along the Napa River proper, all
principally Xerolls) are volcanic in origin, and deep, very gravelly
sandy loams to sandy clay loams to clay loams, with low to moderate
water holding capacities. Sediments have been transported relatively
short distances from their origins, as this is the headwater area of
the Napa River system, and as such the soils contain a higher
percentage of coarse clasts (especially boulders), with sand dominating
the fine fraction of almost every soil. Dr. Elliott-Fisk notes that
small sections of the upper stream basins of Sulphur Canyon and the
Spring Mountain region contain the massive Franciscan marine sandstone
and conglomerate, with its affiliated volcanic and metamorphic
inclusions. The lithology of the fine clasts that compose the alluvial
fans in this immediate region (i.e., Sulphur Creek fan) include a
higher portion of non-volcanic clasts (up to 15 percent, to
occasionally 30 percent) than alluvial fans to the north, such as the
Ritchie Creek fan below Diamond Mountain, located largely north of the
northern St. Helena viticultural area boundary. However, the percentage
of non-volcanic clasts is much higher to the south of the St. Helena
viticultural area (i.e., Bear Canyon fan). The lower toe-slopes of the
mountain slopes in the St. Helena area (below the 400-foot elevation)
contain both Xerolls and Xeralfs, depending on slope stability and age.
Dr. Elliott-Fisk states that she has excavated an additional 17
soil trenches in the process of her scientific investigation in this
area. She states that she has done previous soils work in this region
and has excavated over 350 soil trenches in Napa Valley. She has
provided, as part of the petition, profile drawings, descriptive field,
and analytical laboratory data for 17 soils by horizon. Four of these
soils are from property outside of the boundaries of the St. Helena
viticultural area and were chosen to be representative of those areas.
Soil Summary
The soils of the St. Helena viticultural area, according to Dr.
Elliott-Fisk, are deep alluvial soils of moderate age, with well-formed
horizonation, textural B horizons, sandy clay loam to clay loam
textures, reddish colors, high gravel content (primarily of cobbles),
and near neutral pH. In this erosional zone of the valley floor, where
the width is restricted, groundwater and the groundwater table have a
significant influence, bringing in additional dissolved minerals and
increasing the pH (and nutritional content) above the valley floor
soils to the north (Calistoga region) and south (Rutherford and
Oakville), as well as the hillsides (Spring Mountain, Diamond Mountain,
Howell Mountain and Pritchard Hill). The soil drainage in the St.
Helena area is typically good since the water table drops in the
spring, summer and fall to allow the vines an adequate root zone with
free oxygen and carbon dioxide, thus providing vigorous conditions for
grape growing. The moderate climate, with warm summer temperature,
balances well with this soil environment, and allows the wine grower to
manipulate the vines to extract what the winemaker desires from a
particular varietal. As such, Dr. Elliott-Fisk concludes that this
provides a stable and predictable environment for grape growing, and
the physical geography of the region has promoted the production of
fine wines in the St. Helena area for many decades.
Conclusion
The St. Helena viticultural area is uniform topographically and can
be distinguished from the steeper hillsides to the east (Howell
Mountain) and west (Spring Mountain District) as well as from the
valley floor areas to the south (Rutherford) and north (Calistoga).
This is an area where the valley floor narrows from around 19,000 feet
at Oakville Cross Road and 11,000 feet at Zinfandel Lane to around
3,500 feet at Lodi Lane and Bale Lane. The area is marked by a uniform,
steep gradient and significant river erosion. The bedrock geology is
primarily volcanic, in contrast to the sedimentary soils to the south.
Along the eastern edge of the St. Helena area, geologic and
geographic evidence support the inclusion of Spring Valley and Pratt
Valley and the exclusion of Conn Valley and the higher mountain slopes.
Viticultural Area Boundary
The boundary of the St. Helena viticultural area may be found on
three United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps with a scale of
1:24,000. The boundary is described in Sec. 9.149.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law
96-511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR
Part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because no requirement to
collect information is imposed.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a
significant economic 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. In addition, no new recordkeeping or reporting
requirements are imposed by this regulation. Accordingly, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this regulation is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
this regulation is not subject to the analysis required by this
Executive Order.
Drafting Information. The principal author of this document is
Robert White, Wine, Beer and Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Administrative practices and procedures, Consumer protection,
Viticultural areas, and Wine.
Authority and Issuance
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, American
Viticultural Areas, is amended as follows:
[[Page 47061]]
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
Par. 1. The authority citation for Part 9 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Par. 2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.149 to read as
follows:
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
* * * * *
Sec. 9.149 St. Helena.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``St. Helena.''
(b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps for determining the
boundary of the St. Helena viticultural area are three U.S.G.S. 7.5
minute series topographical maps of the 1:24,000 scale. They are
titled:
(1) ``St. Helena Quadrangle, California,'' edition of 1960, revised
1993.
(2) ``Calistoga Quadrangle, California,'' edition of 1958,
photorevised 1980.
(3) ``Rutherford Quadrangle, California,'' edition of 1951,
photorevised 1968, photoinspected 1973.
(c) Boundary. The St. Helena viticultural area is located in Napa
County in the State of California. The boundary is as follows:
(1) Beginning on the Rutherford Quadrangle map at the point of
intersection between State Highway 29 and a county road shown on the
map as Zinfandel Avenue, known locally as Zinfandel Lane, the boundary
proceeds in a southwest direction along Zinfandel Avenue to its
intersection with the north fork of Bale Slough (blueline stream) near
the 201 foot elevation marker;
(2) Thence in a northwesterly direction approximately 2,750 feet
along the north fork of Bale Slough to a point of intersection with a
southwesterly straight line projection of a light duty road locally
known as Inglewood Avenue;
(3) Thence in a straight line in a southwesterly direction along
this projected extension of Inglewood Avenue approximately 2,300 feet
to its intersection with the 500 foot contour line in Section 7,
Township 7 North (T7N), Range 5 West (R5W);
(4) Thence along the 500 foot contour line in a generally
northwesterly direction through Sections 7, 1 and 2, to its
intersection of the western border of Section 2, T7N, R6W;
(5) Thence northerly along the western border of Section 2
approximately 500 feet to its intersection with Sulphur Creek in
Sulphur Canyon in the northwest corner of Section 2, T7N, R6W;
(6) Thence along Sulphur Creek in an easterly direction
approximately 350 feet to its intersection with the 400 foot contour
line;
(7) Thence along the 400 foot contour line in a generally easterly,
then northwesterly, direction past the city of St. Helena (on the St.
Helena Quadrangle map) to a point of intersection with a southwesterly
straight line projection of the county road shown as Bale Lane in the
Carne Humana Rancho on the Calistoga Quadrangle map;
(8) Thence along the projected straight line extension of Bale Lane
in a northeasterly direction approximately 700 feet to the intersection
of State Highway 29 and Bale Lane and continuing northeasterly along
Bale Lane to its intersection with the Silverado Trail;
(9) Thence in a northwesterly direction along the Silverado Trail
approximately 1,500 feet to an unmarked driveway on the north side of
the Silverado Trail near the 275 foot elevation marker;
(10) Thence approximately 300 feet northeasterly along the driveway
to and beyond its point of intersection with another driveway and
continuing in a straight line projection to the 400 foot contour line;
(11) Thence in a northerly and then generally southeasterly
direction along the 400 foot contour line through Sections 10
(projected), 11, 12, 13, 24 and 25 in T8N, R6W, Section 30 in T8N, R5W,
Sections 25 and 24 in T8N, R6W, Sections 19 and 30 in T8N, R5W to a
point of intersection with the city limits of St. Helena on the eastern
boundary of Section 30 in T8N, R5W, on the St. Helena Quadrangle map;
(12) Thence north, east and south along the city limits of St.
Helena to the third point of intersection with the county road known as
Howell Mountain Road in Section 29, T8N, R5W;
(13) Thence in a northeasterly direction approximately 900 feet
along Howell Mountain Road to its intersection with Conn Valley Road;
(14) Thence northeasterly and then southeasterly along Conn Valley
Road to its intersection with the eastern boundary of Section 28, T8N,
R5W;
(15) Thence south approximately 5,200 feet along the eastern
boundary of Sections 28 and 33 to a point of intersection with the 380
foot contour line near the southeast corner of Section 33, T8N, R5W, on
the Rutherford Quadrangle map;
(16) Thence in a northwesterly direction along the 380 foot contour
line in Section 33 to a point of intersection with a northeasterly
straight line projection of Zinfandel Avenue;
(17) Thence in a southwesterly direction approximately 950 feet
along this straight line projection of Zinfandel Avenue to its
intersection with the Silverado Trail;
(18) Thence continuing along Zinfandel Avenue in a southwesterly
direction to its intersection with State Highway 29, the point of
beginning.
Signed: August 9, 1995.
Daniel R. Black,
Acting Director.
Approved: August 21, 1995.
Dennis M. O'Connell,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade
Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 95-22486 Filed 9-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-U
