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

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