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

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