[Federal Register: January 20, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 12)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3015-3026]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ja99-8]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
27 CFR Part 9
RIN 1512-AA07
[T.D. ATF-407; Ref 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: Treasury decision, final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Treasury decision establishes a viticultural area in the
State of California to be known as ``San Francisco Bay,'' under 27 CFR
part 9. The 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 ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area encompasses
approximately 2,448 square miles total and contains nearly 5,800 acres
planted to grapes and over 39 wineries. In conjunction with
establishing the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area, ATF is
amending the boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area to
include the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. The previous
boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area already encompassed
part of the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. Approximately 639
square miles is added to Central Coast with an additional 2,827 acres
planted to grapes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 22, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Brokaw, Regulations Division,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, DC 20226, 650
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC., 20226, (202) 927-8199.
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,
[[Page 3016]]
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 San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area
A consortium of nearly 75 growers and vintners led by Wente Bros.,
petitioned ATF to establish a new viticultural area in Northern
California known as ``San Francisco Bay,'' that will be included within
the Central Coast viticultural area. The ``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. 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 viticultural area encompasses approximately 2,448 square miles
total containing nearly 5,800 acres planted to grapes and over 39
wineries.
ATF has determined that the area is distinguished by a 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.
The waters of the San Francisco Bay as well as urban areas,
particularly the City of San Francisco, have purposely been included
since San Francisco Bay is the source of the viticultural area's
weather and the focal point of its history. Although it is not a likely
vineyard site, the city has long been a wine industry hub.
Comments
On October 20, 1997, ATF published a notice of proposed rulemaking,
Notice No. 856, in the Federal Register soliciting comments on the
proposed viticultural area. Given the scope of the proposals and the
wide range of interests that were likely to be affected by the
establishment of a San Francisco Bay viticultural area, ATF solicited
specific public comment with respect to certain questions raised by the
petition. ATF asked the following questions in Notice No. 856:
(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?
ATF received 49 comments in response to Notice No. 856. Basically,
the comments fall into five categories. These categories are as
follows: those in support (9), those in support for expanding the ``San
Francisco Bay'' area (1), those that oppose ``San Francisco Bay'' but
support the Central Coast expansion (3), those that oppose being
associated with another viticultural area (33), and those that oppose
the creation of ``San Francisco Bay'' (3).
Those in support felt that the appellation clearly defines a unique
area influenced by San Francisco Bay weather patterns. Among the
favorable comments were statements indicating that approval of the area
would align the boundaries between coastal appellations, would
recognize a historic wine growing region, would reinforce the economic
impact of wine growing in the area, and would be of benefit in
educating the wine consumer.
One respondent, the Allied Grape Growers, disagreed that the
coastal climatic influences stop at the crest of the hills of Altamont.
This respondent felt that the Brentwood-Byron area is now considered by
most independent observers as a part of the ``San Francisco Bay'' area.
While this respondent believed that Brentwood-Byron corridor should be
included, no specific evidence was provided.
Three respondents opposed the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural
area but supported the expansion of the Central Coast viticultural
area. Among these respondents was the Sonoma County Grape Growers
Association. The Association claimed that the petitioners have taken
reference works out of context with ``preposterous'' results. The
Association cited dramatic differences in climatic conditions (San
Francisco and Livermore), conflicting definitions of the area
(disagreement over what constitutes the Bay area), the fact that the
climate of San Francisco cannot sustain winegrape growing, and that the
proposal was for marketing purposes only. The Association believed that
it is not a meaningful viticultural area and will undermine the
integrity of the American viticultural area system. On the other hand,
the Association believed that there seems to be no reason to oppose
expanding the Central Coast viticultural area. The remaining two
respondents in this category generally felt that it is too broad an
appellation to have climatic integrity and seemed to have been proposed
for marketing and convenience considerations. One of the respondents
felt that the Central Coast appellation needs to be reexamined while
the other respondent felt that the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural
area should be included in the Central Coast viticultural area.
Thirty-three respondents opposed being associated with either the
``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area or the expansion of the Central
Coast viticultural area. These respondents were from the Santa Cruz
Mountains viticultural area. They felt that they have worked hard to
establish the distinctiveness of their wines and inclusion in either
the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area or the expanded central
coast viticultural area will do them ``incalculable damage.'' These
respondents claimed that the soils, rainfall, climate, and physical
features of Livermore differ completely from those of the Santa Cruz
Mountains viticultural area. They stated that their vineyards are, for
the most part, above the fogs. The average temperatures are in the 2140
to 2880 degree-day zone while Livermore is 3400. Rainfall for Livermore
is listed in the petition at 18 inches. These respondents stated that
the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area averages more than double
that amount of rainfall at a minimum of 36 to 40 inches. Further, the
Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area shares virtually none of the
soil types of Livermore with the soils producing average yields
dramatically smaller than the average yields in Livermore, resulting in
a different style of wine entirely. These respondents claimed that the
excluded areas in the ``North Bay'' and ``East Bay'' share far more
geographical and climatic features with Livermore than does the Santa
Cruz Mountains viticultural area. In addition, these respondents felt
that it would
[[Page 3017]]
undermine the meaning of American viticultural areas by including
large, dissimilar areas where grapes cannot be grown. Specifically,
these areas include the northern half of the San Francisco Peninsula
which is too cold to grow grapes, the heavy urban populations of
Oakland and the East Bay, and the Bay itself, which is not an inland
lake but a large bay of the Pacific Ocean. These respondents also felt
that including areas like southern Santa Clara County, and parts of San
Benito County would mislead the American public since residents of
these areas, as well as Santa Cruz County, historically have not been
considered and do not consider themselves to be living in the San
Francisco Bay area. Similarly, these respondents opposed the inclusion
of the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area in the expanded Central
Coast viticultural area since the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural
area does not share the same soils, climate or geographical
characteristics. These respondents also felt that the Central coast is
a recent construct having only limited validity from Monterey Bay
south.
Three respondents generally opposed the creation of the
viticultural area. One of these respondents, Mr. William Drake, claimed
that anyone who has spent any time at all in the Bay Area is well aware
that there are extreme differences in the various climates between the
areas included in the petition. In addition, Mr. Drake claimed that the
topography of this nearly two million acre proposed area differs
dramatically as one travels from the eastern portion westward to, and
over the coastal mountains. Mr. Drake also believed that while there
may be a Bay Area, that area is understood to include a number of
distinctly different areas, some of which are even outside of the Bay
Area, let alone the ``San Francisco Bay Area.'' Another respondent in
opposition was the Association of California North Coast Grape Growers.
Regarding the name evidence, the Association stated that Santa Clara,
Santa Cruz, and San Benito are nowhere near the San Francisco Bay. If
anything, Santa Cruz is associated with Monterey Bay. The Association
further stated that the petitioner provided no supporting evidence that
the San Benito area is locally or nationally known to be affiliated
with San Francisco. Regarding the exclusion of areas north of the Bay,
i.e., Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, the Association felt
that there was not supporting evidence, on the one hand to exclude
these areas, while, on the other hand, there was not supporting
evidence that the ``San Francisco Bay'' area should be included with
regions north of the bay. The Association felt that the most important
question revolves around the purpose of appellation names, i.e., to
identify and distinguish grape growing regions which are unique from
other growing regions based on geographic, altitude, climate, and soil
conditions. The Association believed that the fact that the City of San
Francisco is ``not a feasible vineyard site'' seemed to be a prima
facie case for immediate disqualification of the appellation name. The
Association also believed that the fact that the ``San Francisco Bay is
a locally, nationally or internationally recognized place name'' is
completely irrelevant to the issue of whether that place is known for
growing wine grapes. The City of San Francisco, and certainly its bay,
are not viticultural areas, according to the Association. The
Association went on to state that the petitioner might do just as well
calling the viticultural area ``Golden Gate Region'' if name
recognition is to be the litmus test for approving an appellation
petition. The Association further believed that if this area is
approved, it would set a precedent that would allow specific city or
location names to be used to describe very large geographic areas.
According to the Association, the North Coast appellation could be
renamed ``Napa Area,'' Central Coast could be called ``Santa Barbara,''
and the Central Valley might be named ``Yosemite.'' The Association
felt that should the petitioned area be found to be unique, and a
qualified appellation area, the name of the region should be more
generalized (i.e., Central Bay Area) as opposed to the specific city
name of San Francisco. The Association claimed that misstatements and
irrelevant evidence was provided by the petitioner. As examples,
excerpts from Hugh Johnson's book The World Atlas of Wine and Robert
Lawrence Balzer's Vineyards and Wineries: Bay Area and Central Coast
Counties were cited to illustrate that the ``Bay Area'' is not accepted
by these authors and industry experts as a viticultural region as
claimed by the petitioners. The Association further claimed that the
petitioners have provided extraneous historical and current evidence.
The Association cited the use of grape pricing districts as setting a
bad precedent to be used as a determinant for appellation designation
approval. The Association pointed out that San Benito is clearly not
listed as a part of the Grape Pricing District which includes San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra
Costa.
ATF Analysis of Comments
ATF has reviewed both the comments and the petitioner's response to
them and has concluded that, with one exception, the petitioner has
demonstrated that the proposed area represents a continuum of coastal
climate that is moderated and altered by San Francisco Bay creating a
distinct and recognizable area known as ``San Francisco Bay.'' The
exception is the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area. According to
the comments from members of the Santa Cruz Mountains Winegrowers
Association, the Santa Cruz Mountains vineyards, in the vast majority,
are located above the coastal fogs. The Santa Cruz vintners believe
that the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area is based primarily on
altitude and is not affected by the climates below. They also point out
that their viticultural area does not share the soils, climate, or
geographical characteristics of other viticultural areas in the State.
The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area is characterized by a
climate which is greatly influenced in the western portion by the
Pacific Ocean breezes and fog movements, and in the eastern portion by
the moderating influences of the San Francisco Bay. These two
influences tend to produce weather which is generally cool during the
growing season. Temperatures in the slopes of the hillsides where most
of the vineyards are located appear to vary from that at the lower
elevations. This is caused by the marine influence coming off the
Pacific Ocean which cools the mountains at night much more than the
valley floor. ATF has concluded that the Santa Cruz Mountains
viticultural area exhibits features and characteristics unique to its
boundaries when compared to the surrounding areas and should not be
included within the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area.
Accordingly, The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area has been
excluded from the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area.
ATF further believes that there is no significant or substantive
evidence at this time that would warrant holding hearings on this issue
as requested in some of the comments from the Santa Cruz Mountains
vintners.
Finally, ATF is not including the Brentwood--Byron area as
requested by the Allied Grape Growers. While this respondent believed
that the coastal climatic influences extended into the Brentwood--Byron
corridor, no specific evidence was provided to support this request.
[[Page 3018]]
Evidence That the Name of the Area Is Locally or Nationally Known
``San Francisco Bay'' is a locally, nationally and internationally
recognized place name. ATF has concluded that ``San Francisco Bay'' is
the appropriate name for the area. San Francisco Bay is widely
recognized as 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 area is located--border the San
Francisco Bay. Santa Cruz County, although it has no Bay shoreline, has
traditionally been associated with the place name ``San Francisco
Bay.'' Also included is the portion of the Santa Clara Valley located
in San Benito County.
The names ``San Francisco Bay area'' or ``San Francisco Bay
region'' sometimes refer to an area that is different than the area
discussed in the petition. 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
were 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.
The name San Francisco Bay is more frequently 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 1967 Time
Life book entitled The Pacific States, 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 weather expert Harold Gilliam, in his book Weather of the San
Francisco Bay Region, discusses an area including San Francisco, San
Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Cruz Counties. 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, 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'' were included with the petition.
A final source is Lawrence Kinnaird, University of California
Professor of History, who wrote a History of the Greater San Francisco
Bay Region. 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
Within the grape growing and winemaking community, the name San
Francisco Bay has always been identified with the ``San Francisco Bay''
viticultural area. Several references 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. 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. Mr. Johnson repeatedly distinguishes
the winegrowing region south and east of the Bay from areas to the
north of the Bay. A statement in Mr. Johnson's book points out that the
area just south and east of San Francisco Bay is wine country as old as
the Napa Valley.
Another writer, Robert Lawrence Balzer devotes a chapter to
``Vineyards and Wineries: Bay Area and Central Coast Counties'' in his
book Wines of California. This chapter and the accompanying map include
wineries and vineyards in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties. 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 are 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.'' This author does not
consider Napa and Sonoma Counties as part of the Bay Area. The
following statement is evidence of this. ``Alameda County does not have
the scenic charm of * * * Napa and Sonoma.* * * '' 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.''
Another source in support of the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural
area boundaries is ``Grape Intelligence,'' a reporting service for
California winegrape industry statistics. 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.
As historical evidence, 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 California Department of Food and Agriculture currently
considers the area as a single unit. 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.
A list of ``Largest Bay Area Wineries'' from a chart which appeared
in the San Francisco Business Times of November 21, 1988, 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 Area From Surrounding Areas
Climate
The unifying and distinguishing feature of the coastal climate of
the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area is the influence of both
the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. Coastal areas north of the
appellation area are influenced by the Pacific Ocean and by the San
Pablo and Richardson Bays, while areas south of the appellation 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.
West to east flowing winds named the westerlies, which bring
weather systems in California onshore from the ocean, prevail in the
``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. Directly affecting the
[[Page 3019]]
weather in the area is the Pacific high pressure system, centered a
thousand miles off the Pacific Coast. During winter months, its
location south of San Francisco allows the passage of westward moving,
rain producing, low pressure storms through the area.
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 the San Francisco area. 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 Boundaries
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. 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. The higher
humidity, lower temperatures, and wind flow that enter the Golden Gate
gap do not flow north of the San Francisco Bay.
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, General Viticulture lists Napa with 2880
degree-days, while Martinez (directly south of Napa on the Carquinez
Strait) has 3500 degree-days. Calistoga is listed as 3150 degree-days,
while Livermore (approximately equidistant from the Carquinez Strait,
but to the south) has 3400. 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.
The ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area is also distinguished
from the counties north of the San Francisco Bay by annual rainfall
amounts. 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 ``San
Francisco Bay'' viticultural area.
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
percent more rain in a season than does San Mateo, which has a
corresponding bayshore location 34 miles to the south. 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. 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.
It should be noted that the California North Coast Grape Growers
advanced a position that is consistent with the petitioner's current
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. 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 main determinants of the northern boundary of the
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. These factors lead to significant wind flow,
temperature, and precipitation differences between the areas north and
south of San Francisco Bay. Thus, 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.
The eastern boundary of the ``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.
East of the Diablo Range lies the Central Valley, distinguished
from the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area by its higher
temperature, lower humidity, and decreased rainfall. 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 4000 degree-days), while sites in the ``San Francisco Bay''
viticultural area range from Region I to III. This is illustrated on a
``Degree Day Map'' provided by the petitioner.
North of Altamont, the viticultural area boundary continues to
follow the inland boundary of coastal influence. (This portion of the
boundary matches the 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 average precipitation in the Central Valley is lower than in
the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. 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, the main determinants of the eastern boundary of the
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. These factors lead to
significant temperature, humidity and precipitation differences between
the areas east and west of the eastern boundary.
The southern boundary matches those of the Santa Cruz and Santa
Clara viticultural areas. As discussed in the section on climate, the
San Francisco Bay influence is diminished and the Monterey Bay
influence is felt south of the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area.
The regional northwestern prevailing wind flow direction generally
prevents the Monterey Bay influence from affecting the climate in the
viticultural area.
Monterey Bay has a very broad mouth with high mountain ranges to
both the north and south. 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
[[Page 3020]]
travels to the east and south (borne by the prevailing northwest wind)
into the Salinas Valley and up against the eastern coastal hills.
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 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.
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. 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. 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. Past Gilroy to Hollister, however, a new cooling trend
is observed due to the influence of the Monterey Bay.
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. Continuing south in the Salinas Valley, the
climate again grows warmer with increasing distance from Monterey Bay.
In summary, the southern boundary of the ``San Francisco Bay''
viticultural 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.
The western boundary of the ``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. 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.
Just north of the City of Santa Cruz, the western boundary turns
east excluding a small portion of Santa Cruz County from the
viticultural area, as it was from the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural
area. The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area has been excluded from
the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area as discussed above. 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, the main determinant of the western boundary of the proposed
viticultural area includes 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
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.
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.
This pattern is modified by a few gaps and passes in the mountain
ranges that allow marine influences to spread farther inland without
obstruction. 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. 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 ``San Francisco Bay''
viticultural area. This interaction has two principal effects: (1) to
allow the coastal influence of the Pacific Ocean to extend farther east
than otherwise possible, and (2) to modify that coastal influence
because of the moderating effects of Bay waters on surrounding weather.
Boundaries
In the original proposal, a small part of the east end of the
Livermore Valley was omitted. This newly described area most accurately
completes the description and designation of the climatic and
geographic zones for Livermore Valley and has been added to the new
``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area by ATF. This area adds less
than three square miles to the viticultural area and approximately 350
acres of wine grapes.
Amendment of the Boundaries of the Central Coast Viticultural Area
In conjunction with establishing the ``San Francisco Bay''
viticultural area, ATF is amending the boundaries of the Central Coast
viticultural area to encompass the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural
area as proposed by the petitioners and discussed in Notice No. 856.
An examination of the three large viticultural areas on the
California coast reveals a gap between Monterey and
[[Page 3021]]
Marin, where many acres of existing and potential vineyards are not
represented by any viticultural area. The revised Central Coast
viticultural area continues the logical pattern already established in
the organization of viticultural areas on the California coast. The
expanded Central Coast viticultural area is a larger area that ties
together several smaller sub-appellations (Santa Clara Valley, 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 ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area), all of
which are dominated by the same geographic and general marine
influences that create their climate. 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 previous
Central Coast boundaries.
The Name, Central Coast, as Referring to the Counties Surrounding
San Francisco Bay
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
previously recognized as the Central Coast viticultural area. In
support of this, are the following 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 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.
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.''
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.
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. Finally, a vineyard and winery map published by Sally
Taylor and Friends in the 1980's includes Santa Cruz County on the map
entitled ``North Central Coast.''
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 area.
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.
Section 25236 of the 1955 California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act
allowed 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.
While ``central coastal counties'' is not a recognized viticultural
area under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, this law is
mentioned solely to support the fact that the counties surrounding San
Francisco Bay have been accepted in California as belonging within the
place name ``Central Coast.''
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 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 sources discussed above demonstrate that the counties included
in the revised Central Coast boundaries are commonly and historically
known as being within the place-name ``Central Coast.''
The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area has been excluded from
the revised Central Coast viticultural area for the same reasons cited
above for excluding it from the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural
area.
Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features (Climate, Soil,
Elevation, Physical Features, etc.) Which Distinguish the
Viticultural Features of the Area From Surrounding Areas
Coastal Climate and Marine Influence
The coastal climate of the Central Coast viticultural area is the
principal feature which unifies the area and distinguishes it from
surrounding areas. An indication of the ``coastal climate'' effect on
the area is the difference between July and September temperatures.
September (fall) is usually warmer than July (summer) in coastal areas,
while the reverse is true in continental areas. 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. 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. These air
flows from the Pacific Ocean invade the land mass through gaps in the
coast range. Thus, 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
[[Page 3022]]
temperatures in each city, which constitutes the measure of ``coastal''
character. Continental cities (Antioch to Madera), which are outside
the previous and revised 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. 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).
Within the extension, the climate acts in an identical manner to
the area in the previous Central Coast viticultural area. This claim is
supported by Table I, demonstrating that locations within the 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 was
attached to the petition. Accordingly, the data presented above
establishes that the Central Coast boundary should be revised to
accurately reflect the extent of the Central Coast climate.
The ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area and the Central Coast
viticultural area lie within the same botanic zone according to the
Sunset Western Garden Book published for 55 years by the editors of
Sunset Magazine. 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, and 17.
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 revision to the Central Coast viticultural area also lies within
these zones.
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. The Climatic Regions Map from
Atlas of California supports the Mediterranean climate claim. 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 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 C), with partial Csbn climate (more than thirty
days of fog) along the coast.
It is due to this coastal climate (mainly fog and wind), that the
degree of marine influence in the revised Central Coast viticultural
area is similar to the degree of marine influence found at other places
inside the previous boundaries of the 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 revised viticultural area is similar to other areas included in
Central Coast. The fog extends inland to approximately the same extent
throughout the revised viticultural area. The ``Retreat of Fog'' map
submitted with the petition also shows the similarity in the duration
of fog in the previous and revised Central Coast viticultural area. The
similar fog pattern is most evident along the coastal areas of Big Sur,
Monterey Bay and San Francisco.
Topography
Santa Cruz and the other San Francisco Bay Counties share the
Central Coast's terrain. One of the major California coast range gaps
which produces the climate within the previous Central Coast boundaries
lies within the revision to the Central Coast. 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. The Golden Gate and Monterey Bay
allow the ocean influence to enter into the previous Central Coast
viticultural area creating its coastal climate which is the unifying
and distinguishing feature of the area. The main gap in the previous
Central Coast viticultural area, the Monterey Bay allows marine air and
fog from the Pacific Ocean to travel south and inland, into the Salinas
Valley. This feature creates the 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 North-
Westerly 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. 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.
Although the Golden Gate and San Francisco Bay are primary
influences on the previous Central Coast climate, neither shoreline was
included in the previous Central Coast boundary. The revision to the
Central Coast viticultural area logically extends the previous Central
Coast boundaries to include the shores of the Golden Gate and San
Francisco Bay.
Boundaries
The 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 with the
exception of the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area. The ``San
Francisco Bay'' viticultural area adds approximately 639 square miles
to Central Coast. This area contains 2,827 acres planted to grapes. In
the original proposal, a small part of the east end of the Livermore
Valley was omitted. This newly described area most accurately completes
the description and designation of the climatic and geographic zones
for Livermore Valley and has been added to the revised
[[Page 3023]]
Central Coast viticultural area. This area adds less than three square
miles to the viticultural area and approximately 350 acres of wine
grapes.
The 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 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 changes to the western boundary, the California
coastline, consists of extending the boundary north to the Golden Gate.
The 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 eastern boundary follows the previous boundary of
the Central Coast viticultural area. North of Altamont, the boundary
extension excludes the easternmost range of coastal mountains. The
eastern boundary includes Martinez and Concord, but excludes Antioch,
and the eastern portion of Contra Costa County.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 C.F.R. Part 1320, do
not apply to this final rule because there is no requirement to collect
information.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this 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 regulation is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
this final rule is not subject to the analysis required by this
Executive Order.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document is David W. Brokaw,
Regulations Division, 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 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.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
Par. 2. Section 9.75 is amended by removing the word ``and'' from
paragraph (b)(17), by adding paragraphs (b)(19) through (b)(41), by
revising the introductory text of paragraph (c), by removing paragraphs
(c)(2) through (c)(13) and adding new paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(16)
and, redesignating existing paragraphs (c)(14) through (c)(40) as
paragraphs (c)(17) through (c)(43).
Sec. 9.75 Central Coast.
* * * * *
(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; and
(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. The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area is
excluded. (The boundaries of the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area
are described in 27 CFR Sec. 9.31.)
* * * * *
(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 Quadrangle)
[[Page 3024]]
(3) From this point, the boundary proceeds east on the San
Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to the Alameda County shoreline. (Oakland
West Quadrangle)
(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 Quadrangle)
(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 Quadrangle)
(6) The boundary proceeds in southeasterly direction in a straight
line to Mt. Diablo elevation 3,849. (Clayton Quadrangle)
(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 Quadrangle)
(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 Quadrangle)
(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 Quadrangle)
(10) Then proceed south along the eastern boundaries of Sections
18, 19, 30, and 31 in Township 2 South, Range 3 East to the southeast
corner of Section 31. (Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle)
(11) Then proceed east along the southern border of Section 32,
Township 2 South, Range 3 East to the northwest corner of Section 4.
(Altamont Quadrangle)
(12) Then proceed south along the western border of Sections 4 and
9. (Altamont Quadrangle)
(13) Then proceed south along the western border of Section 16
approximately 4275 feet to the point where the 1100 meter elevation
contour intersects the western border of Section 16. (Altamont
Quadrangle)
(14) Then proceed in a southeasterly direction along the 1100 meter
elevation contour to the intersection of the southern border of Section
21 with the 1100 meter elevation contour. (Altamont Quadrangle)
(15) Then proceed west to the southwest corner of Section 20.
(Altamont Quadrangle)
(16) Then proceed south along the western boundaries of Sections 29
and 32, Township 3 South, Range 3 East and then south along the western
boundaries of Sections 5, 8, 17, 20, Township 4 South, Range 3 East to
the southwest corner of Section 20. (Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle)
* * * * *
Par. 3. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.157 to read as
follows:
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;
(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; and
[[Page 3025]]
(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 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 Santa Cruz
Mountains viticultural area is excluded (see 27 CFR 9.31.) 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, to the southwest corner of
Section 20, in Township 3 South, Range 3 East.
(14) Then east along the southern boundary of Sections 20, and 21,
in Township 3 South, Range 3 East on the Altamont Quadrangle to the
1100 meter elevation contour.
(15) Then, along the 1100 meter contour in a northwesterly
direction to the intersection with the western boundary of Section 16,
Township 3 South, Range 3 East on the Altamont Quadrangle.
(16) Then north along the eastern boundary of Sections 17, 8, and 5
in Township 3 South, Range 3 East to the northeast corner of Section 5.
(17) Then proceed west along the northern border of Section 5 to
the northwest corner of Section 5.
(18) Then 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.
(19) 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.
(20) Then proceed due north to Brushy Peak (elevation 1,702) on the
Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle.
(21) 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.
(22) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line
to Mulligan Hill (elevation 1,438) on the Clayton Quadrangle.
(23) 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.
(24) 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.
(25) Then proceed west on the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to
the San Francisco County shoreline on the San Francisco North
Quadrangle.
(26) 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.
(27) Then proceed northeasterly along Majors Creek to its
intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton Quadrangle.
(28) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line in a generally
easterly/northeasterly direction to its intersection with Bull Creek on
the Felton Quadrangle.
(29) Then proceed along Bull Creek to its intersection with Highway
9 on the Felton Quadrangle.
(30) Then proceed along Highway 9 in a northerly direction to its
intersection with Felton Empire Road.
(31) Then proceed along Felton Empire Road in a westerly direction
to its intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton
Quadrangle.
(32) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line (across the
Laurel, Soquel, Watsonville West and Loma Prieta Quadrangles) to its
intersection with Highway 152 on the Watsonville East Quadrangle.
(33) 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.
(34) 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.
(35) 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.
[[Page 3026]]
(36) 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.
(37) 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.
(38) Then proceed northeast along Pacheco Creek approximately .5
mile to the beginning point.
Signed: November 19, 1998.
John W. Magaw,
Director.
Approved: December 24, 1998.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 99-1209 Filed 1-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P