Establishment of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area and the Realignment of the Boundary of the Central Coast Viticultural Area (97- 242)

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

RIN 1512-AA07

[Notice No. 856]

Establishment of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area and the

Realignment of the Boundary of the Central Coast Viticultural Area (97-

242)

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has received

a petition proposing the establishment of a viticultural area in the

State of California to be known as San Francisco Bay. The proposed area

is located mainly within five counties which border the San Francisco

Bay and partly within two other counties. These counties are: San

Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and partly in

Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. The proposed San Francisco Bay

viticultural area encompasses approximately 3,087 square miles total

containing nearly 6,000 acres planted to grapes and over 70 wineries.

In conjunction with the petition, ATF received a proposal to amend the

boundaries of the current Central Coast viticultural area to include

the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area. As the current

boundaries already encompass part of the proposed San Francisco Bay

viticultural area, approximately 1,278 square miles would be added to

Central Coast with an additional 3,027 acres planted to grapes and 21

more wineries.

DATES: Written comments must be received by January 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Chief, Wine, Beer, and Spirits

Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol,

[[Page 54400]]

Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091-0221 (Attn:

Notice No. 856). Copies of the petitions, the proposed regulations, the

appropriate maps, and any written comments received will be available

for public inspection during normal business hours at the ATF Reading

Room, Office of Public Affairs and Disclosure, Room 6480, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC., 20226.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Brokaw, Wine, Beer and Spirits

Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC., 20226 (202) 927-8230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 23, 1978, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR

37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27 CFR Part 4. These regulations

allow the establishment of definitive viticultural areas. The

regulations allow the name of an approved viticultural area to be used

as an appellation of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements.

On October 2, 1979, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR

56692) which added a new Part 9 to 27 CFR, for the listing of approved

American viticultural areas, the names of which may be used as

appellations of origin.

Section 4.25a(e)(1), title 27, CFR, defines an American

viticultural area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable

by geographic features, the boundaries of which have been delineated in

Subpart C of Part 9.

Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the procedure for proposing an

American viticultural area. Any interested person may petition ATF to

establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition

should include:

(a) Evidence that the name of the proposed viticultural area is

locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in

the petition;

(b) Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the

viticultural area are as specified in the petition;

(c) Evidence relating to the geographical characteristics (climate,

soil, elevation, physical features, etc.) which distinguish the

viticultural features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;

(d) A description of the specific boundaries of the viticultural

area, based on features which can be found on United States Geological

Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and

(e) A copy (or copies) of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the

boundaries prominently marked.

Petition for the Proposed San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area

ATF has received a petition from Mr. Philip Wente, Vice President

of Wente Bros., proposing to establish a new viticultural area in

Northern California to be known as San Francisco Bay. The proposed San

Francisco Bay viticultural area is located mainly within five counties

which border the San Francisco Bay and partly within two other

counties. These counties are: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,

Alameda, Contra Costa and partly in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties.

The petitioner claims that Santa Cruz County, although it has no Bay

shoreline, has traditionally been associated with the place name San

Francisco Bay. The portion of the Santa Clara Valley located in San

Benito County has been included. The proposed viticultural area

encompasses approximately 3,087 square miles total containing nearly

6000 acres planted to grapes and over 70 wineries.

The petitioner claims that the proposed San Francisco Bay

viticultural area is a distinctive grape growing region. According to

the petitioner, the area is distinguished by a unique marine climate

which is heavily influenced by the proximity of the San Francisco Bay

and the Pacific Ocean. Specifically, the San Francisco Bay and the

local geographical features surrounding it permit the cooling influence

of the Pacific Ocean to reach farther into the interior of California

in the Bay Area than elsewhere along the California coast.

In proposing boundaries for the San Francisco Bay viticultural

area, the petitioner has purposely included the waters of the San

Francisco Bay as well as urban areas, particularly the City of San

Francisco. The petitioner feels that the San Francisco Bay is the

``heart and soul of this appellation, its namesake and unifying force,

the source of its weather, the focal point of its history.'' As such,

the petitioner believes that it should not be cut out of the center of

the appellation. Although it is not a feasible vineyard site, the city

has long been a wine industry hub.

The evidence submitted by the petitioner is discussed in detail

below. Given the scope of the proposals and the wide range of interests

that are likely to be affected by the establishment of a San Francisco

Bay viticultural area, ATF wishes to solicit public comment

particularly with respect to the following questions raised by the

petition:

(1) Is there sufficient evidence that the name, ``San Francisco

Bay,'' can be associated with regions south and east of the bay such as

Santa Clara Valley and Livermore? Do these regions have climatic or

geographic differences with other regions of the proposed area to such

a degree that they cannot be considered as one viticultural area?

(2) Does the evidence support exclusion from the proposed

viticultural area of the regions north of the Bay, i.e., Marin, Napa,

Solano, and Sonoma Counties?

(3) Can the regions where grapes cannot be grown in the proposed

viticultural area, such as the dense urban settings and the Bay itself,

be easily segregated from the rest of the proposed area? Does it

undermine the notion of a viticultural area to keep them included?

Evidence That the Name of the Area is Locally or Nationally Known

According to the petitioner, San Francisco Bay is a locally,

nationally and internationally recognized place name. Therefore, the

petitioner believes that San Francisco Bay is the appropriate name for

the proposed area, since even people who do not know the names of any

California counties have an idea where the San Francisco Bay is. The

petitioner claims that to people all over the world, San Francisco Bay

calls to mind the well-known body of water by that name and, by

inference, the land areas that surround it.

The counties of San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara

and San Mateo--within which the proposed area is located--border the

San Francisco Bay. According to the petitioner, Santa Cruz County,

although it has no Bay shoreline, has traditionally been associated

with the place name San Francisco Bay. The petitioner also included the

portion of the Santa Clara Valley located in San Benito County.

According to the petitioner, the names ``San Francisco Bay area''

or ``San Francisco Bay region'' sometimes refer to an area that is

different than the area discussed in this petition. The petitioner

claims that although sources differ in how broadly they define the San

Francisco Bay region, the various definitions--without exception--

include the counties mentioned above. The following sources, are cited

by the petitioner as being representative of the consensus among

experts that the petitioned area is widely known by the name San

Francisco Bay.

According to the petitioner, the name San Francisco Bay is more

frequently

[[Page 54401]]

and more strongly associated with the counties lying south and east of

the San Francisco Bay than with nearby counties to the north. For

example, the petitioner cites the 1967 Time Life book entitled ``The

Pacific States,'' which describes the San Francisco Bay Area as a

megalopolis with the city [of San Francisco] as the center, stretching

40 miles south to San Jose and from the Pacific to Oakland and beyond.

The petitioner also cites weather expert Harold Gilliam, in his

book Weather of the San Francisco Bay Region, as discussing an area

including San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa

Cruz Counties. The petitioner points out that James E. Vance, Jr.,

Professor of Geography at the University of California, Berkeley,

studied the same area in his book entitled Geography and Urban

Evolution in the San Francisco Bay Area. Also, according to the

petitioner, climatologist Clyde Patton studied the same region in his

definitive work Climatology of Summer Fogs in the San Francisco Bay

Area. Mr. Vance's and Mr. Patton's maps of ``Bay Area Place Names'' are

included with the petition.

A final source cited by the petitioner is Lawrence Kinnaird,

University of California Professor of History, who wrote a History of

the Greater San Francisco Bay Region. According to the petitioner, Mr.

Kinnaird's book also covers the counties of San Francisco, Santa Clara,

Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz.

Historical or Current Evidence That the Boundaries of the

Viticultural Area Are as Specified in the Petition

According to the petitioner, within the grape growing and

winemaking community, the name San Francisco Bay has always been

identified with the area proposed in the petition. In support of this

claim, the petitioner cited several references to reflect the

industry's perception of this place name.

For example, wine writer Hugh Johnson, in his book The World Atlas

of Wine, devotes a separate section (``South of the Bay'') to the

winegrowing areas of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast. According

to the petitioner, Mr. Johnson describes the traditional centers of

wine-growing in this area as concentrated in the Livermore Valley east

of the Bay; the western foot-hills of the Diablo range; the towns south

of the Bay, and along the slopes of the Santa Cruz mountains down to a

cluster of family wineries round the Hecker Pass. The petitioner claims

that Mr. Johnson repeatedly distinguishes the winegrowing region south

and east of the Bay from areas to the north of the Bay. In support of

this claim, the petitioner refers to a statement from Mr. Johnson's

book pointing out that the area just south and east of San Francisco

Bay is wine country as old as the Napa Valley.

Another writer cited by the petitioner is Robert Lawrence Balzer

who devotes a chapter to ``Vineyards and Wineries: Bay Area and Central

Coast Counties'' in his book Wines of California. According to the

petitioner, this chapter and the accompanying map include wineries and

vineyards in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa

Cruz Counties. The petitioner claims that throughout his book, Mr.

Balzer makes it clear that he differentiates the San Francisco Bay area

grape growing areas from those north of San Francisco Bay and south of

Monterey Bay. In support of this claim, the petitioner cites several

quotes from the book. For example, Mr. Balzer states that, ``Logic, as

well as geography, dictates our division into these unofficial groups

of counties: North Coast, Bay Area and Central Coast, South Central

Coast, Central Valley, and Southern California. The vineyard domain

south of San Francisco is as rich and colorful in its vintage history

as the more celebrated regions north of the Bay Area.'' According to

the petitioner, it is clear that this author does not consider Napa and

Sonoma Counties as part of the Bay Area. As evidence of this, the

petitioner cites the following statement, ``Alameda County does not

have the scenic charm of * * * Napa and Sonoma * * *.'' The petitioner

points out that the same book contains a photograph showing the Golden

Gate Bridge and San Francisco Bay with the caption, ``San Francisco Bay

divides the North Coast from the other wine areas of California.''

According to the petitioner, in his book Vineyards and Wineries of

America, Patrick W. Fegan distinguishes the winegrowing region of the

San Francisco Bay Area from Monterey, noting that when urban

development around the Bay Area began to threaten vineyard areas,

University of California professors proposed planting vineyards in

Monterey County.

Another source cited by the petitioner in support of the proposed

boundaries is Grape Intelligence, a reporting service for California

winegrape industry statistics. According to the petitioner, Grape

Intelligence issues a yearly report for grape varieties in the San

Francisco Bay Area. Reports for this region cover San Francisco, San

Mateo, Santa Cruz, Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

The petitioner also cited historic evidence. According to the

petitioner, the San Francisco Viticultural District, defined by the

State Viticultural Commissioners at the end of the last century,

comprised the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa

Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey--but no areas north of the

Bay.

The petitioner claims that the California Department of Food and

Agriculture currently considers the proposed area as a single unit. The

petitioner states that the Grape Pricing Districts established by the

State of California reflect the joined perception of the six San

Francisco Bay counties, by grouping San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa

Cruz, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa together in District 6.

The petitioner provided a list of ``Largest Bay Area Wineries''

from a chart which appeared in the San Francisco Business Times of

November 21, 1988. The list includes 21 wineries in Alameda, Contra

Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. No wineries from the

North Coast counties of Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, or Lake are included.

Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features (Climate, Soil,

Elevation, Physical Features, etc.) Which Distinguish Viticultural

Features of the Proposed Area From Surrounding Areas

Climate

According to the petitioner, the unifying and distinguishing

feature of the coastal climate of the proposed area is the influence of

both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. The petitioner claims

that coastal areas north of the proposed area are influenced by the

Pacific Ocean and by the San Pablo and Richardson Bays, while areas

south of the proposed area are influenced by the Pacific Ocean and by

Monterey Bay. In addition, the ocean influence enters each region

through different routes--through the Estero Gap in the North Coast,

through the Golden Gate in the San Francisco Bay region, and through

Monterey Bay in the southerly portion of Central Coast.

According to the petitioner, west to east flowing winds named the

westerlies, which bring weather systems in California onshore from the

ocean, prevail in the proposed area. Directly affecting the weather in

the San Francisco Bay area is the Pacific high pressure system,

centered a thousand miles off the Pacific Coast. The petitioner claims

that during winter months, its location south of San Francisco allows

the passage of

[[Page 54402]]

westward moving, rain producing, low pressure storms through the area.

According to the petitioner, during the summer months the high is

located closer to the latitude of San Francisco. It then deflects rain

producing storms to the north, producing a dry summer climate in San

Francisco area. The petitioner claims that the winds from the high

(which flow onshore from the northwest to the southeast) produce a cold

southward flowing surface water current (called the California Current)

off the California coast by a process called upwelling, in which cold

deep water is brought to the surface. When moist marine air from the

Pacific High flows onshore over this cold water, it cools, producing

fog and/or stratus cloud areas which are transported inland by wind.

Climatic Affect and Proposed Boundaries

The petitioner states that from a meteorological perspective, the

northwesterly windflow through the Estero Gap (near Petaluma in Sonoma

County) into the Petaluma Valley, provides the major source of marine

influence for areas north of the Golden Gate. Airflow inland from San

Pablo Bay also affects the climate of southern Napa and Sonoma

Counties. According to the petitioner, San Francisco Bay has little

impact on the weather in the region to its north. The onshore

prevailing northwesterly flow direction, in combination with the

coastal range topographic features of counties north of the Bay and the

pressure differential of the Central Valley, minimize a northward

influence from the air that enters the Golden Gate. According to the

petitioner, the higher humidity, lower temperatures and wind flow that

enter the Golden Gate gap do not flow north of the San Francisco Bay.

The petitioner states that, as a result of the different air mass

sources, grape growing sites immediately north of the Bay are cooler

than corresponding sites in the Bay Area. As an example, the petitioner

cites General Viticulture which lists Napa with 2,880 degree days,

while Martinez (directly south of Napa on the Carquinez Strait) has

3,500 degree days. Calistoga is listed as 3,150 degree days, while

Livermore (approximately equidistant from the Carquinez Strait, but to

the south) has 3,400. According to the petitioner, the degree day

concept was developed by UC Davis Professors Amerine and Winkler as a

measure of climate support for vine growth and grape ripening; large

degree day values indicate warmer climates.

According to the petitioner, the proposed San Francisco Bay

viticultural area is also distinguished from the counties north of the

San Francisco Bay by annual rainfall amounts. The petitioner states

that most winter storms that hit the Central California coast originate

in the Gulf of Alaska. Thus, locations in the North Coast viticultural

area generally receive more rain than sites in the proposed

viticultural area.

According to the petitioner, this effect is illustrated by Hamilton

Air Force Base on the northwest shore of the San Pablo Bay in Marin

County. The base gets 25% more rain in a season than does San Mateo,

which has a corresponding bayshore location 34 miles to the south. The

petitioner points out that San Francisco gets an average of 21 inches

of rain annually, but nine miles north of the Golden Gate, Kentfield

gets 46 inches--more than double the amount of rain. According to the

petitioner, average rainfall over the entire south bay wine producing

area is only 18 inches, while the City of Napa averages 25 inches,

Sonoma County (average of 5 sites) averages 35 inches, and Mendocino

County averages 40 inches.

According to the petitioner, it should be noted that the California

North Coast Grape Growers supported the petitioner's position. In a

letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms dated September

14, 1979, they asked that the term North Coast Counties be applied only

to Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino counties. The petitioner claims that part

of their reasoning was the observations of Professor Crowley of the

Geography Department at Sonoma State University who said that the

counties north of the San Francisco Bay have different climates from

the counties south of the bay.

Thus, the petitioner maintains that the main determinants of the

northern boundary of the proposed viticultural area include the: (1)

Natural geographic/topographic barriers, (2) lack of direct San

Francisco Bay influence in areas to its north, and (3) different

predominant coastal influences in the northern area. The petitioner

feels that these factors lead to significant wind flow, temperature,

and precipitation differences between the areas north and south of San

Francisco Bay. Thus, the petitioner claims that it is logical to draw

the northern boundary of the proposed area at the point where the

Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco Bay separate the northern

counties, i.e., Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma of the North Coast

viticultural area from the counties of San Francisco and Contra Costa.

According to the petitioner, the eastern boundary of the proposed

San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area matches the existing boundary of

the Central Coast Viticultural area and is located at the inland

boundary of significant coastal influence, i.e., along the hills and

mountains of the Diablo Range that form a topographical barrier to the

intrusion of marine air.

According to the petitioner, east of the Diablo Range lies the

Central Valley, distinguished from the proposed area by its higher

temperature, lower humidity, and decreased rainfall. The petitioner

states that, the Central Valley has a completely continental climate,

i.e., much hotter in summer and cooler in winter. Amerine & Winkler

categorize the grape growing areas in the Central Valley (Modesto,

Oakdale, Stockton, Fresno) as Region V (over 4,000 degree days), while

sites in the proposed area range from Region I to III. This is

illustrated on a ``Degree Day Map'' provided by the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, north of Altamont, the proposed

boundary continues to follow the inland boundary of coastal influence.

(This portion of the boundary matches the concurrently submitted

proposed boundary extension for the Central Coast Viticultural area.)

Like the existing eastern boundary of the Central Coast, this extension

excludes the innermost range of coastal mountains. The eastern boundary

includes Martinez and Concord, but excludes Antioch, and the eastern

portion of Contra Costa County.

The petitioner claims that the average precipitation in the Central

Valley is lower than in the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural

area. The following are thirty year average rainfall statistics in

inches for locations in the Central Valley: Modesto 10.75, Fresno

10.32, Los Banos 7.98, Lodi 12.74, Antioch 12.97.

Thus, according to the petitioner, the main determinants of the

proposed eastern boundary of the proposed viticultural area include the

(1) historic existing eastern boundary of the Central Coast

viticultural area, (2) natural geographic/topographic climatic barrier

created by the Diablo Range, and (3) the inland boundary of the coastal

marine influence. The petitioner feels that these factors lead to

significant temperature, humidity and precipitation differences between

the areas east and west of the proposed eastern boundary.

According to the petitioner, the southern boundary matches those of

the Santa Cruz and Santa Clara viticultural areas. As discussed in the

section on

[[Page 54403]]

climate, the San Francisco Bay influence is diminished and the Monterey

Bay influence is felt south of the proposed area. According to the

petitioner, the regional northwestern prevailing wind flow direction

generally prevents the Monterey Bay influence from affecting the

climate in the proposed area.

According to the petitioner, Monterey Bay has a very broad mouth

with high mountain ranges to both the north and south. The petitioner

claims that fog and ocean air traveling along the Pajaro River do on

rare occasions reach the south end of the Santa Clara Valley to the

north, but most of the Monterey Bay influence travels to the east and

south (borne by the prevailing northwest wind) into the Salinas Valley

and up against the eastern coastal hills.

According to the petitioner, Central Coast climate thus gradually

warms with increased distance from the San Francisco Bay, as air

traveling over land areas south of the bay accumulates heat and dries

out. The petitioner claims that the warming trend reverses, however, at

the point where the south end of the Santa Clara Valley meets the

Pajaro River. Here wind and fog from the Monterey Bay, flowing westward

through the Pajaro River gap, begins to assert a cooling influence.

According to the petitioner, the decrease of San Francisco Bay

influence, and the concurrent increase of Monterey Bay influence, is

demonstrated by the difference in heat summation between Gilroy and

Hollister. The petitioner claims that Central Coast sites warm with

increasing distance from the San Francisco Bay, but this pattern

reverses at the southern boundary of the Santa Clara Valley

viticultural area, between Gilroy and Hollister, as the influence of

the Monterey Bay becomes dominant. According to the petitioner, this

produces significantly cooler temperatures in Hollister than in Gilroy,

even though Hollister is farther from San Francisco Bay.

Petition Table 2 ``Decrease in San Francisco Bay Influence,''

indicates a gradual warming trend as one travels southward from the San

Francisco Bay. According to the petitioner, past Gilroy to Hollister,

however, a new cooling trend is observed due to the influence of the

Monterey Bay.

According to the petitioner, Hollister is significantly cooler than

Gilroy even though its location is sheltered by hills from the full

influence of Monterey Bay. The weather station near coastal Monterey

shows the strongest cooling from the Monterey Bay. The petitioner

claims that continuing south in the Salinas Valley, the climate again

grows warmer with increasing distance from Monterey Bay.

In summary, according to the petitioner, the southern boundary of

the proposed area has been defined to match the southern boundary of

the Santa Clara Valley and Santa Cruz viticultural areas because this

is the location of the transition from a climate dominated by flow from

the San Francisco Bay to one dominated by flow from Monterey Bay.

According to the petitioner, the west boundary of the proposed San

Francisco Bay Viticultural Area follows the Pacific coastline from San

Francisco south to just north of the City of Santa Cruz. This area is

greatly influenced by Pacific Ocean breezes and fog. According to the

petitioner, the western hills of the Santa Cruz Mountains are exposed

to the strong prevailing northwest winds. The climate of the eastern

portion of these hills is affected by the moderating influences of the

San Francisco Bay.

According to the petitioner, just north of the City of Santa Cruz,

the western boundary turns east excluding a small portion of Santa Cruz

County from the proposed area, as it was from the Santa Cruz Mountains

viticultural area. The petitioner claims that the area around Santa

Cruz and Watsonville is close to sea level, and is sheltered from the

prevailing northwesterly Pacific Ocean winds by the Santa Cruz

mountains. Therefore, fog and bay breezes from Monterey Bay impact the

area, while the San Francisco Bay does not influence the area.

Thus, according to the petitioner, the main determinant of the

western boundary of the proposed viticultural area include the (1)

natural geography of the coastline, (2) Pacific Ocean and San Francisco

Bay influence, and (3) historical identity as part of the San Francisco

Bay Area.

Topography

According to the petitioner, the weather in the bay region is a

product of the modification of the onshore marine air masses described

above by the topography of the coast ranges, a double chain of

mountains running north-northwest to south-southeast. Each chain

divides into two or more smaller chains, creating a patchwork of

valleys.

According to the petitioner, as the elevation of the western chain

of the coastal ridge is generally higher than the altitude of the

inversion base, the inversion acts as a lid to prevent the cool onshore

flowing marine air and fog from rising over the mountains and flowing

inland. Because of this, successive inland valleys generally have less

of a damp, seacoast climate and more of a dry, continental climate.

According to the petitioner, this pattern is modified by a few gaps

and passes in the mountain ranges that allow marine influences to

spread farther inland without obstruction. The petitioner claims that

these inland areas are, however, somewhat protected from the Pacific

fogs, which are evaporated as the flow is warmed by passage over the

warmer land surfaces.

The three largest sea level gaps in the central California coastal

range mountainous barrier are (north to south): Estero Lowland in

Sonoma, Golden Gate into San Francisco Bay, and Monterey Bay. According

to the petitioner, several smaller mountain pass gaps (San Bruno and

Crystal Springs) sometimes also allow for the inland spread of coastal

climate in the Bay Area when the elevated inversion base is high

enough.

According to the petitioner, the Bay Area climate is greatly

modified by San Francisco Bay, whose influence is similar to that of

the ocean, i.e., it cools summer high temperatures and warms winter low

temperatures. The petitioner states that the narrowness of the Golden

Gate limits the exchange of bay and ocean waters, and thus bay waters

are not quite as cold as the coastal ocean currents during the summer.

According to the petitioner, marine air exits the San Francisco Bay

(without having experienced the normal drying and heating effects

associated with over-land travel) in several directions. The

predominant outflow is carried by the onshore northwesterly winds

toward the south through the Santa Clara Valley to Morgan Hill and to

the east via the Hayward Pass and Niles Canyon.

According to the petitioner, temperatures at given locations in the

Bay Area are thus dependent on streamline distance (actual distance

traveled) from the ocean, rather than its ``as the crow flies''

distance from the ocean. The petitioner claims that Livermore Valley

temperatures show this phenomenon. Ocean air flows across San Francisco

Bay, through the Hayward Pass and Niles Canyon, and into the Livermore

Valley, causing a cooling effect in summer and a warming effect in

winter.

In summary, because of the interaction of topography with the

prevailing winds in the Bay Area, the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco

Bay are the major climatic influences in the proposed viticultural

area. According to the petitioner, this interaction has two principal

effects: (1) To allow the coastal influence of the Pacific Ocean to

[[Page 54404]]

extend farther east than otherwise possible, and (2) to modify that

coastal influence because of the moderating effects of Bay waters on

surrounding weather.

Proposal To Amend the Boundaries of the Central Coast Viticultural

Area

In conjunction with the petition to establish the San Francisco Bay

viticultural area, Mr. Philip Wente, Vice President of Wente Bros.,

proposes to amend the boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area

to encompass the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area.

According to the petitioner, an examination of the three large

viticultural areas on the California coast reveals a gap between

Monterey and Marin, where many acres of existing and potential

vineyards are not represented by any viticultural area. In petitioning

for the revision of the Central Coast viticultural area, the petitioner

claims to be continuing the logical pattern already established in the

organization of viticultural areas on the California coast. According

to the petitioner, the proposed revised Central Coast viticultural area

is a larger area that ties together several smaller sub-appellations

(Santa Clara Valley, Santa Cruz Mountains, Ben Lomond Mountain,

Livermore Valley, San Ysidro District, Pacheco Pass, San Benito,

Cienega Valley, Mount Harlan, Paicines, Lime Kiln Valley, Monterey,

Carmel Valley, Chalone, Arroyo Seco, Paso Robles, York Mountain, Edna

Valley, Arroyo Grande Valley, Santa Maria Valley, Santa Ynez Valley,

and the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area), all of which are

dominated by the same geographic and general marine influences that

create their climate.

According to the petitioner, the evidence presented in the petition

establishes that the well-known Central Coast name and the general

marine climate extend north and northwest beyond the current Central

Coast boundaries.

The Name, Central Coast as Referring to Santa Cruz and the Counties

Surrounding San Francisco Bay

According to the petitioner, the name Central Coast, as used by

wine writers and the state legislature, extends north and west into

Santa Cruz County and five counties that surround the San Francisco

Bay, beyond the area currently recognized as the Central Coast

viticultural area. In support of this claim, the petitioner cited

several references.

Patrick W. Fegan's book Vineyards and Wineries of America, contains

a map of ``Central Coastal Counties'' designating Contra Costa,

Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, San

Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara.

Another example cited by the petitioner is Central Coast Wine Tour,

published by Vintage Image in 1977 and 1980, which covers the area from

San Francisco to Santa Barbara and specifically describes past and

present wineries in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara,

San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties.

According to the petitioner, The Connoisseurs' Handbook of

California Wines defines ``Central Coast'' in the section entitled

``Wine Geography'' as: ``The territory lying south of San Francisco and

north of the city of Santa Barbara--San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara,

San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties.''

According to the petitioner, Bob Thompson and Hugh Johnson, in

their book The California Wine Book, describe the ``Central Coast'' as

an indeterminate area between San Francisco and Santa Barbara,

including San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Monterey, Santa Clara

and Santa Cruz Counties.

According to the petitioner, in Wines of California, by Robert

Balzer, the wine producing areas on the California coast are

categorized into three groups: North Coast counties, Bay Area and

Central Coast counties, and South Central Coast counties. The section

on ``Bay Area and Central Coast'' features a map, included with the

petition, illustrating the counties surrounding San Francisco Bay and

the Santa Cruz Mountains. The petitioner points out that listed among

the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast wineries in the book are seven

of the vintners who signed the petition to establish the Santa Cruz

Mountains Viticultural Area (David Bruce Winery, Felton-Empire

Vineyards, Mount Eden Vineyards, Martin Ray Vineyards, Ridge Vineyards,

Roudon-Smith Vineyards and Woodside Vineyards). Finally, the petitioner

provided a vineyard and winery map published by Sally Taylor and

Friends in the 1980's which includes Santa Cruz County on the map

entitled ``North Central Coast.''

According to the petitioner, in addition to the numerous

viticultural writings, government and scholarly studies on the climate

and geography of the California Central Coast also include the counties

around the San Francisco Bay in the proposed area.

According to the petitioner, the historic San Francisco

Viticultural District in 1880 grouped the counties of San Francisco,

San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Contra Costa together.

The 1930 University of California monograph ``Summer Sea Fogs of the

Central California Coast'' by Horace R. Byers focuses on an area ``from

Point Sur to the entrance of Tomales Bay, including San Francisco and

Monterey Bays: Santa Clara, San Ramon, Livermore, San Benito, and

Salinas valleys * * *'' These valleys are located in Santa Clara,

Contra Costa, Alameda, San Benito and Monterey Counties, respectively.

The petitioner cites section 25236 of the 1955 California Alcoholic

Beverage Control Act which allows the use of the description ``central

coastal counties dry wine'' on wine originating in several counties

including Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San

Luis Obispo counties. The petitioner recognizes that ``central coastal

counties'' is not a legal appellation under the Federal Alcohol

Administration Act. The petitioner stated that this law is mentioned

solely to support the fact that the counties surrounding San Francisco

Bay are well-accepted in California as belonging within the place name

``Central Coast.''

According to the petitioner, the California Division of Forestry's

``Sea Breeze Effects on Forest Fire Behavior in Central Coastal

California'' summarizes the results of several fireclimate surveys

conducted in the 1960's in several counties surrounding San Francisco

Bay. Currently, the petitioner points out that the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration/National Climatic Data Center publishes

monthly summaries of climatological data grouped into geographical

divisions. The ``Central Coast Drainage'' division includes locations

in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa

Cruz, Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties.

The petitioner believes that the sources discussed above

demonstrate that the counties included in the proposed revised Central

Coast boundaries are commonly and historically known as being within

the place-name ``Central Coast.''

Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features (Climate, Soil,

Elevation, Physical Features, etc.) Which Distinguish the

Viticultural Features of the Proposed Area From Surrounding Areas

Coastal Climate and Marine Influence

According to the petitioner, the coastal climate of the Central

Coast viticultural area is the principal feature which unifies the area

and distinguishes it from surrounding areas. As an

[[Page 54405]]

indication of the ``coastal climate'' effect on the area, the

petitioner cites the difference between July and September

temperatures. According to the petitioner, September (fall) is usually

warmer than July (summer) in coastal areas, while the reverse is true

in continental areas. The petitioner states that this unique coastal

characteristic results from two factors: fogs and air flows. Fogs keep

summer coastal temperatures low while the interior regions absorb all

of the sun's summer energy. These fogs diminish in strength and

frequency in the fall allowing more coastal solar gain and the

resultant temperature rise, while interior temperatures begin their

relative decline. According to the petitioner, this seasonal

fluctuation comes about when, (1) the pressure differential between the

Pacific high and the Central Valley is reduced which eliminates the

inversion cap over the coast ranges and, (2) the temperature of the

Pacific Ocean reaches its highest level in the fall which reduces the

cooling of onshore air flows. According to the petitioner, these air

flows from the Pacific Ocean invade the land mass through gaps in the

coast range. Thus, the petitioner claims that a location's climate is

dictated primarily by its position relative to the windstream distance

from the Pacific--the greater the windstream distance the greater the

July/October temperature differential and the greater the degree day

accumulation as the windstream will be increasingly warmed by the

ground it passes over.

Table 1 in the petition lists California cities in windstream

groups from the most coastal (initiation) to the most continental

(terminus). This table lists the difference (in degrees) between the

average July and September temperatures in each city, which constitutes

the measure of ``coastal'' character. Continental cities (Antioch to

Madera), which are outside the current and proposed boundaries of the

Central Coast, exhibit the highest July temperatures and the greatest

difference in temperature from July to September. Also, included are

accumulated Degree Days for April through October following Winkler's

system. According to the petitioner, this chart demonstrates that

within the coastal region--north and south--there is a continuum of

coastal influence and the ensuing heat gradient during the growing

season (Degree Days).

According to the petitioner, within the proposed extension, the

climate acts in an identical manner to the area in the existing Central

Coast viticultural area. To support this claim, the petitioner cites

petition Table I demonstrating that locations within the proposed

revision to the Central Coast viticultural area (San Francisco,

Richmond, Oakland, Berkeley, Half Moon Bay, Martinez, San Jose, Ben

Lomond, Palo Alto) share the same coastal character (i.e., (1) higher

September temperatures and, (2) an airstream continuum of Degree Day

temperatures correlated with the airstream distance from the Pacific

Ocean) as found at the current Central Coast cities (Monterey, Salinas,

Hollister, King City, Livermore, Gilroy). A Coastal Character Map

showing this data is attached to the petition. Accordingly, the

petitioner believes that the data presented above establishes that the

Central Coast boundary should be revised to accurately reflect the

extent of the central coast climate.

According to the petitioner, the proposed San Francisco Bay

viticultural area and the Central Coast viticultural area lie within

the same botanic zone. The petitioner cites the Sunset Western Garden

Book published for 55 years by the editors of Sunset Magazine. The

petitioner states that this comprehensive western plant encyclopedia

has become a leading authority regarding gardening in the western

United States. The Western Garden Book divides the region from the

Pacific Coast to the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains into twenty-

four climate zones. The Central Coast viticultural area lies within

Zones 7, 14, 15, 16, 17.

The petitioner believes that the climate zones established by

Sunset Magazine demonstrate that the main distinguishing feature of

Central Coast--the coastal climate--extends west to the Santa Cruz

coastline and north to the Golden Gate. The proposed revision to the

Central Coast viticultural area also lies within these zones.

According to the petitioner, the characteristic cool Mediterranean

climate of the Central Coast viticultural area extends north and west

of the current boundaries. This coastal Mediterranean climate is cool

in the summer and the marine fog which penetrates inland makes the

coast very oceanic, with little difference in temperature between mild

winters and cool summers. The Mediterranean climate classification is

so called because the lands of the Mediterranean Basin exhibit the

archetypical temperature and rainfall regimes that define the class. In

support of the Mediterranean climate claim, the petitioner cited The

Climatic Regions Map from Atlas of California. This map is based on the

Koeppen classification, which divides the world into climate regions

based on temperature, the seasonal variation of drought, and the

relationship of rainfall to potential evaporation. The Koeppen system

uses letters based on German words having no direct English

equivalents. The Climatic Regions Map depicts the extent of cool

Mediterranean climate both north and west of the current Central Coast

boundary and within it.

The map shows that Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo

and Santa Cruz counties in the proposed revision to the Central Coast

viticultural area, like Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo and Santa

Barbara counties in the current Central Coast viticultural area, are

mostly classified as Csb Mediterranean climates (average of warmest

month is less than 22 deg.C), with partial Csbn climate (more than

thirty days of fog) along the coast.

The petitioner states that it is due to this coastal climate

(mainly fog and wind), that the degree of marine influence in the

proposed revision to the Central Coast viticultural area is similar to

the degree of marine influence found at other places inside the current

Central Coast viticultural area. A map of central California, submitted

with the petition, shows the extent of marine fog in the area. This map

shows that the fog pattern in the proposed area is similar to other

areas included in Central Coast. The fog extends inland to

approximately the same extent throughout the proposed revised

viticultural area. According to the petitioner, the ``Retreat of Fog''

map submitted with the petition also shows the similarity in the

duration of fog in the current and proposed Central Coast viticultural

area. The petitioner points out that the similar fog pattern is most

evident along the coastal areas of Big Sur, Monterey Bay and San

Francisco.

Topography

According to the petitioner, Santa Cruz and the other San Francisco

Bay counties share the Central Coast's terrain. The petitioner pointed

out that one of the major California coast range gaps which produces

the climate within the current Central Coast boundaries lies within the

proposed revision to the Central Coast. The petitioner claims that the

three largest sea level gaps in the central California coastal range

mountainous barrier are (north to south): Estero Lowland in Sonoma

County, Golden Gate into San Francisco Bay, and Monterey Bay. According

to the petitioner, the Golden Gate and Monterey Bay allow the ocean

influence to enter into the current Central Coast viticultural area

creating its coastal climate which is the unifying and distinguishing

feature of the area. The main gap in the current Central Coast

[[Page 54406]]

viticultural area, the Monterey Bay allows marine air and fog from the

Pacific Ocean to travel south and inland, into the Salinas Valley. The

petitioner believes that this feature creates the ideal grape-growing

climate that exists in the Salinas Valley, but from a meteorological

perspective, it has comparatively little influence on the portion of

Central Coast viticultural area lying north of it. The on-shore

prevailing northwesterly flow direction, combined with the coastal

range topographical features north of the Bay's mouth, minimize

northward influence from the air that enters the Monterey Bay.

According to the petitioner, the Golden Gate gap introduces a cooling

marine influence and the San Francisco Bay allows marine air and fog to

travel much further inland and south through the Santa Clara and

Livermore Valleys and provides most of the coastal influence affecting

the northern portion of the Central Coast viticultural area.

The petitioner states that although the Golden Gate and San

Francisco Bay are primary influences on the current Central Coast

climate, neither shoreline is included in the current Central Coast

boundary. The petitioner believes that the proposed revision to the

Central Coast viticultural area logically extends the current Central

Coast boundaries to include the shores of the Golden Gate and San

Francisco Bay.

Boundaries

The proposed extension of the Central Coast viticultural area would

include the currently excluded portions of five counties which border

the San Francisco Bay. These counties are San Francisco, San Mateo,

Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and all of Santa Cruz County. The

proposed San Francisco Bay appellation would add approximately 1,278

square miles to Central Coast. This area contains 3,027 acres planted

to grapes and 21 wineries.

The proposed revision to the Central Coast boundary follows the

Pacific coastlines of Santa Cruz, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties,

crosses San Francisco Bay, follows the northern boundary of Contra

Costa County to Concord, and then follows the inland boundary of

coastal influence, according to the petitioner, along straight lines

between landmarks in the Diablo Mountain Range to the current Central

Coast boundary.

The southern boundary of the Central Coast viticultural area

remains unchanged. The proposed changes to the western boundary, the

California coastline, consists of extending the boundary north to the

Golden Gate. The proposed eastern boundary is extended to include the

area northwest of Livermore up to the San Pablo Bay. From Altamont

(just east of Livermore) south, the proposed eastern boundary follows

the current boundary of the Central Coast viticultural area. North of

Altamont, the proposed boundary extension excludes the easternmost

range of coastal mountains. The proposed eastern boundary includes

Martinez and Concord, but excludes Antioch, and the eastern portion of

Contra Costa County.

Public Participation--Written Comments

ATF requests comments from all interested persons. Comments

received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered.

Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration

if it is practical to do so. However, assurance of consideration can

only be given to comments received on or before the closing date.

ATF will not recognize any submitted material as confidential and

comments may be disclosed to the public. Any material which the

commenter considers to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure

to the public should not be included in the comments. The name of the

person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.

Comments may be submitted by facsimile transmission to (202) 927-

8602, provided the comments: (1) Are legible; (2) are 8\1/2\'' x 11''

in size, (3) contain a written signature, and (4) are three pages or

less in length. This limitation is necessary to assure reasonable

access to the equipment. Comments sent by FAX in excess of three pages

will not be accepted. Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be

acknowledged. Facsimile transmitted comments will be treated as

originals.

Any person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public

hearing on the proposed regulation should submit his or her request, in

writing, to the Director within the 90-day comment period. The

Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all

circumstances, whether a public hearing will be held.

After consideration of all comments and suggestions, ATF may issue

a Treasury decision. The proposals discussed in this notice may be

modified due to comments and suggestions received.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not

apply to this notice because no requirement to collect information is

proposed.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that this proposed regulation will not have

a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The

establishment of a viticultural area is neither an endorsement nor

approval by ATF of the quality of wine produced in the area, but rather

an identification of an area that is distinct from surrounding areas.

ATF believes that the establishment of viticultural areas merely allows

wineries to more accurately describe the origin of their wines to

consumers, and helps consumers identify the wines they purchase. Thus,

any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the

result of the proprietor's own efforts and consumer acceptance of wines

from that region.

No new requirements are proposed. Accordingly, a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a

significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866.

Accordingly, this proposal is not subject to the analysis required by

this Executive Order.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document is David W. Brokaw, Wine,

Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection,

Viticultural areas, and Wine.

Authority and Issuance

Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, part 9, American

Viticultural Areas, is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

Par. 2. Section 9.75 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to add 23

U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) maps (19) through

(41), by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to add three

counties, by removing paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(12) and replacing

them with new paragraphs

[[Page 54407]]

(c)(2) through (c)(9) and, renumbering existing paragraphs (c)(13)

through (c)(40) as paragraphs (c)(10) through (c)(37).

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

* * * * *

Sec. 9.75 Central Coast

(a) Name. * * *

(b) Approved maps. * * *

* * * * *

(19) Diablo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised

1980

(20) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised

1980

(21) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953,

Photorevised 1980

(22) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,

Photorevised 1980

(23) Benicia, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised

1980

(24) Mare Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,

Photorevised 1980

(25) Richmond, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised

1980

(26) San Quentin, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,

Photorevised 1980

(27) Oakland West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,

Photorevised 1980

(28) San Francisco North, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,

Photorevised 1968 and 1973

(29) San Francisco South, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,

Photorevised 1980

(30) Montara Mountain, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,

Photorevised 1980

(31) Half Moon Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,

Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968 and 1973

(32) San Gregorio, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,

Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968

(33) Pigeon Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1968

(34) Franklin Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1968

(35) Ano Nuevo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1968

(36) Davenport, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1968

(37) Santa Cruz, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,

Photorevised 1981

(38) Felton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photorevised

1980

(39) Laurel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photoinspected

1978, Photorevised 1968

(40) Soquel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, Photorevised

1980

(41) Watsonville West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,

Photorevised 1980.

(c) Boundary. The Central Coast viticultural area is located in the

following California counties: Monterey, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara,

Alameda, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, San

Mateo, and Contra Costa. * * *

* * * * *

(2) The boundary follows north along the shoreline of the Pacific

Ocean (across the Watsonville West, Soquel, Santa Cruz, Davenport, Ano

Nuevo, Franklin Point, Pigeon Point, San Gregorio, Half Moon Bay,

Montara Mountain and San Francisco South maps) to the San Francisco/

Oakland Bay Bridge. (San Francisco North map)

(3) From this point, the boundary proceeds east on the San

Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to the Alameda County shoreline. (Oakland

West map)

(4) From this point, the boundary proceeds east along the shoreline

of Alameda County and Contra Costa County across the Richmond, San

Quentin, Mare Island, and Benicia maps to a point marked BM 15 on the

shoreline of Contra Costa County. (Vine Hill map)

(5) From this point, the boundary proceeds in a southeasterly

direction in a straight line across the Honker Bay map to Mulligan Hill

elevation 1,438. (Clayton map)

(6) The boundary proceeds in southeasterly direction in a straight

line to Mt. Diablo elevation 3,849. (Clayton map)

(7) The boundary proceeds in a southeasterly direction in a

straight line across the Diablo and Tassajara maps to Brushy Peak

elevation 1,702. (Byron Hot Springs map)

(8) The boundary proceeds due south, approximately 400 feet, to the

northern boundaries of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 2 East.

(Byron Hot Springs map)

(9) The boundary proceeds due east along the northern boundaries of

Section 13 and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 3 East, to the

northeast corner of Section 18. (Byron Hot Springs map)

Par. 3. The table of sections in subpart C is proposed to be

amended by adding Sec. 9.157 to read as follows:

* * * * *

9.157 San Francisco Bay

Par. 4. Subpart C is proposed to be amended by adding Sec. 9.157 to

read as follows:

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

* * * * *

Sec. 9.157 San Francisco Bay

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this

section is ``San Francisco Bay.''

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps for determining the

boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area are forty-two

U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) maps and one

U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 5 x 11 Minute (Topographic) map. They are titled:

(1) Pacheco Peak, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1971

(2) Gilroy Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971

(3) Mt. Sizer, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971

(4) Morgan Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1980

(5) Lick Observatory, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photoinspected 1973, Photorevised 1968

(6) San Jose East, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,

Photorevised 1980

(7) Calaveras Reservoir, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,

Photorevised 1980

(8) La Costa Valley, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1960,

Photorevised 1968

(9) Mendenhall Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,

Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971

(10) Altamont, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised

1981

(11) Byron Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953,

Photorevised 1968

(12) Tassajara, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953,

Photoinspected 1974, Photorevised 1968

(13) Diablo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised

1980

(14) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised

1980

(15) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953,

Photorevised 1980

(16) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,

Photorevised 1980

(17) Benicia, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised

1980

(18) Mare Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,

Photorevised 1980

(19) Richmond, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised

1980

(20) San Quentin, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,

Photorevised 1980

(21) Oakland West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959,

Photorevised 1980

(22) San Francisco North, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,

Photorevised 1968 and 1973

(23) San Francisco South, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,

Photorevised 1980

(24) Montara Mountain, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956,

Photorevised 1980

[[Page 54408]]

(25) Half Moon Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,

Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968 and 1973

(26) San Gregorio, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961,

Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968

(27) Pigeon Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1968

(28) Franklin Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1968

(29) Ano Nuevo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1968

(30) Davenport, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1968

(31) Santa Cruz, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,

Photorevised 1981

(32) Felton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photorevised

1980

(33) Laurel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photoinspected

1978, Photorevised 1968

(34) Soquel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, Photorevised

1980

(35) Watsonville West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,

Photorevised 1980

(36) Loma Prieta, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968

(37) Watsonville East, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1980

(38) Mt. Madonna, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1980

(39) Gilroy, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photorevised

1981

(40) Chittenden, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1980

(41) San Felipe, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955,

Photorevised 1971

(42) Three Sisters, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954,

Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971

(c) Boundary. The San Francisco Bay viticultural area is located

mainly within the five counties which border the San Francisco Bay and

partly within two other counties in the State of California. These

counties are: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra

Costa and partly in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. The boundaries

of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, using landmarks and points

of reference found on appropriate U.S.G.S. maps, are as follows:

(1) Beginning at the intersection of the 37 degree 00' North

latitude parallel with State Route 152 on the Pacheco Peak Quadrangle.

(2) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line to

the intersection of Coyote Creek with the township line dividing

Township 9 South from Township 10 South on the Gilroy Hot Springs

Quadrangle.

(3) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line to

the intersection of the township line dividing Township 8 South from

Township 9 South with the range line dividing Range 3 East from Range 4

East on the Mt. Sizer Quadrangle.

(4) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line

(across the Morgan Hill Quadrangle) to the intersection of the township

line dividing Township 7 South from Township 8 South with the range

line dividing Range 2 East from Range 3 East on the Lick Observatory

Quadrangle.

(5) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line to

the intersection of State Route 130 with the township line dividing

Township 6 South from Township 7 South on the San Jose East Quadrangle.

(6) Then proceed in a northeasterly direction following State Route

130 to its intersection with the range line dividing Range 1 East from

Range 2 East on the Calaveras Reservoir Quadrangle.

(7) Then proceed north following this range line to its

intersection with the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct on the La Costa Valley

Quadrangle.

(8) Then proceed in a northeasterly direction in a straight line

following the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct to the western boundary of Section

14 in Township 4 South, Range 2 East on the Mendenhall Springs

Quadrangle.

(9) Then proceed south along the western boundary of Section 14 in

Township 4 South, Range 2 East to the southwest corner of Section 14 on

the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle.

(10) Then proceed east along the southern boundary of Section 14 in

Township 4 South, Range 2 East to the southeast corner of Section 14 on

the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle.

(11) Then proceed south along the western boundary of Section 24 in

Township 4 South, Range 2 East to the southwest corner of Section 24 on

the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle.

(12) Then proceed east along the southern boundary of Section 24 in

Township 4 South, Range 2 East and Section 19 in Township 4 South,

Range 3 East to the southeast corner of Section 19 on the Mendenhall

Springs Quadrangle.

(13) Then proceed north along the western boundaries of Sections

20, 17, 8, and 5 on the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle in Township 4

South, Range 3 East, north (across the Altamont Quadrangle) along the

western boundaries of Sections 32, 29, 20, 17, 8, and 5 in Township 3

South, Range 3 East, and north along the eastern boundaries of Sections

31, 30, 19, and 18 in Township 2 South, Range 3 East to the northeast

corner of Section 18 on the Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle.

(14) Then proceed due west along the northern boundaries of Section

18 and Section 13 (Township 2 South, Range 2 East) to a point

approximately 400 feet due south of Brushy Peak on the Byron Hot

Springs Quadrangle.

(15) Then proceed due north to Brushy Peak (elevation 1,702) on the

Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle.

(16) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line

(across the Tassajara and Diablo Quadrangles) to Mt. Diablo (elevation

3,849) on the Clayton Quadrangle.

(17) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line

to Mulligan Hill (elevation 1,438) on the Clayton Quadrangle.

(18) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line

(across the Honker Bay Quadrangle) to a point marked BM 15 on the

shoreline of Contra Costa County on the Vine Hill Quadrangle.

(19) Then proceed west along the shoreline of Contra Costa County

and Alameda County (across the Quadrangles of Benicia, Mare Island,

Richmond, and San Quentin) to the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge on

the Oakland West Quadrangle.

(20) Then proceed west on the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to

the San Francisco County shoreline on the San Francisco North

Quadrangle.

(21) Then proceed along the San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa

Cruz County shoreline (across the Quadrangles of San Francisco South,

Montara Mountain, Half Moon Bay, San Gregorio, Pigeon Point, Franklin

Point, Ano Nuevo and Davenport) to the place where Majors Creek flows

into the Pacific Ocean on the Santa Cruz Quadrangle.

(22) Then proceed northeasterly along Majors Creek to its

intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton Quadrangle.

(23) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line in a generally

easterly/northeasterly direction to its intersection with Bull Creek on

the Felton Quadrangle.

(24) Then proceed along Bull Creek to its intersection with Highway

9 on the Felton Quadrangle.

(25) Then proceed along Highway 9 in a northerly direction to its

intersection with Felton Empire Road.

(26) Then proceed along Felton Empire Road in a westerly direction

to its intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton

Quadrangle.

(27) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line (across the

Laurel, Soquel, Watsonville West and Loma Prieta Quadrangles) to its

intersection with

[[Page 54409]]

Highway 152 on the Watsonville East Quadrangle.

(28) Then proceed along Highway 152 in a northeasterly direction to

its intersection with the 600 foot contour line just west of Bodfish

Creek on the Watsonville East Quadrangle.

(29) Then proceed in a generally east/southeasterly direction along

the 600 foot contour line (across the Mt. Madonna and Gilroy

Quadrangles), approximately 7.3 miles, to the first intersection of the

western section line of Section 30, Township 11 South, Range 4 East on

the Chittenden Quadrangle.

(30) Then proceed south along the section line approximately 1.9

miles to the south township line at Section 31, Township 11 South,

Range 4 East on the Chittenden Quadrangle.

(31) Then proceed in an easterly direction along the township line

(across the San Felipe Quadrangle), approximately 12.4, miles to the

intersection of Township 11 South and Township 12 South and Range 5

East and Range 6 East on the Three Sisters Quadrangle.

(32) Then proceed north along the Range 5 East and Range 6 East

range line approximately 5.5 miles to Pacheco Creek on the Pacheco

Creek Quadrangle.

(33) Then proceed northeast along Pacheco Creek approximately .5

mile to the beginning point.

Signed: October 1, 1997.

John W. Magaw,

Director.

[FR Doc. 97-27692 Filed 10-17-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-31-P