[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27397]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 4, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 801]
RIN 1512-AA07

 

The St. Helena Viticultural Area (94F-015P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) is 
considering the establishment of a viticultural area in the State of 
California to be known as ``St. Helena.'' The proposed area is located 
totally within Napa County. This proposal is the result of a petition 
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.

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Chief, Wine and Beer Branch, 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, 
DC 20091-0221 (Attn: Notice No. 801). Copies of the petition, the 
proposed regulations, the appropriate maps, and any written comments 
received will be available for public inspection during normal business 
hours at: ATF Reading Room, Office of Public Affairs and Disclosure, 
Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert White, Wine and Beer 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.
    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.

Petition

     ATF has 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 Napa Valley viticultural area. As stated in 
the petition, 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 provides the following 
information as evidence that the proposed area meets the regulatory 
requirements discussed previously. Mr. Charles Sullivan, Napa Valley 
historian, has 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 has provided the petitioner with most of the information in 
the petition concerning soils, geology and physical geography of the 
St. Helena area.

Evidence That Viticultural Area Name Is Widely Known

     Data prepared by Mr. Sullivan in support of the petition 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 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 
petitioner states 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. 
According to the petition, 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.
    The petitioner states that a more accurate listing of viticultural 
districts was given by Charles Krug in his report of 1887. In it 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, the petitioner 
feels that from a practical, as well as historical point of view, Bale 
Lane is the best choice.
    The petitioner states that 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, the petitioner states that 
Zinfandel Avenue (Zinfandel Lane) should also be used as the southern 
boundary of the adjacent St. Helena viticultural area.
    The petitioner states that the southeast boundary of the St. Helena 
appellation should include 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, the petitioner states that the 
historical records indicate that Conn Valley is a separate area and 
should not be included in the St. Helena viticultural area. The records 
indicate, however, that Pratt Valley is clearly part of the St. Helena 
area from the location of the Pratt and Chabot winegrowing properties, 
according to the petitioner. In addition, the Crystal Springs Road area 
and Dago Valley should be included, according to the petitioner, 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 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 the petitioner. In the proposed 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.
    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 proposed 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 the petitioner, 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 proposed 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 the petitioner, 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 proposed St. Helena viticultural area is in the northern Napa 
Valley and is defined by the petitioner 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 the petitioner, 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 
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, 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 Proposed St. Helena Viticultural Area

    The valley floor of the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed St. Helena 
viticultural area);
    (2) Dutch Henry and Biter Creek Fan Complex (north of the proposed 
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 proposed 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 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 proposed St. 
Helena area, however.

Soils of the Proposed St. Helena Viticultural Area

    With regard to the soils within the proposed 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 
proposed 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 proposed boundaries of the St. 
Helena viticultural area and were chosen to be representative of those 
areas.

Soil Summary

    The soils of the proposed St. Helena viticultural area, according 
to the petition, 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

    According to the petitioner, the proposed 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.
    The petitioner states that along the eastern edge of the proposed 
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.

Proposed Boundary

    The boundary of the proposed 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 proposed 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 notice of proposed rulemaking because 
no requirement to collect information is proposed.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    It is hereby certified that this proposed 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.
    Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required 
because the proposal, if promulgated as a final rule, is not expected 
(1) to have significant secondary, or incidental effects on a 
substantial number of small entities; or (2) to impose, or otherwise 
cause a significant increase in the reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
compliance burdens on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a 
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. 
Accordingly, this proposal is not subject to the analysis required by 
this Executive Order.

Public Participation

    ATF requests comments from all interested parties. 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, but assurance of consideration cannot be 
given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.
    ATF will not recognize any comment as confidential. Comments may be 
disclosed to the public. Any material which a commenter considers to be 
confidential or inappropriate for disclosure to the public should not 
be included in the comment. The name of the person submitting a comment 
is not exempt from disclosure. During the comment period, any person 
may request an opportunity to present oral testimony at a public 
hearing. However, the Director reserves the right to determine, in 
light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing will be held.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of this document is Robert White, Wine and 
Beer 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 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. 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, 
photorevised 1980.
    (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 northerly 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 northeasterly 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, 30, and 29 in T8N, R5W to 
a point of intersection with the county road shown as Howell Mountain 
Road in Section 29, T8N, R5W, on the St. Helena Quadrangle map;
    (12) Thence in a northeasterly direction approximately 900 feet 
along Howell Mountain Road to its intersection with Conn Valley Road;
    (13) Thence northeasterly and then southeasterly along Conn Valley 
Road to its intersection with the eastern boundary of Section 28, T8N, 
R5W;
    (14) 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;
    (15) 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;
    (16) Thence in a southwesterly direction approximately 950 feet 
along this straight line projection of Zinfandel Avenue to its 
intersection with the Silverado Trail;
    (17) Thence continuing along Zinfandel Avenue in a southwesterly 
direction to its intersection with State Highway 29, the point of 
beginning.

    Signed: October 24, 1994.
Daniel R. Black,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 94-27397 Filed 11-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-U