[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70866-70878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29519]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2008-0009; T.D. TTB-97; Re: Notice Nos. 90 and 91]
RIN 1513-AB57
Expansions of the Russian River Valley and Northern Sonoma
Viticultural Areas
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Treasury decision expands the Russian River Valley
viticultural area in Sonoma County, California, by 14,044 acres, and
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area in Sonoma County, California, by
44,244 acres. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to
better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to
better identify wines they may purchase.
DATES: Effective Date: December 16, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division, P.O. Box 18152,
Roanoke, VA 24014; telephone 202-4453-1039, ext. 275.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act requires that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the
regulations promulgated under the FAA Act.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas and lists
the approved American viticultural areas.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of
the regulations and a name and delineated boundary as established in
part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other
characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its
geographic origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows
vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to
consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase.
Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an
endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure
for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to
request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.12 of
the TTB regulations prescribes standards for petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas. Such
petitions must include the following:
Evidence that the area within the viticultural area
boundary is nationally or locally known by the viticultural area name
specified in the petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the viticultural area;
A narrative description of the features of the
viticultural area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation, that make it distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the viticultural area
boundary;
A copy of the appropriate United States Geological Survey
(USGS) map(s) showing the location of the viticultural area, with the
boundary of the viticultural area clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the viticultural area
boundary based on USGS map markings.
Publication of Notice No. 90
On August 20, 2008, TTB published Notice No. 90, a notice of
proposed rulemaking, in the Federal Register (73 FR 49123) regarding
the proposed expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area
(27 CFR 9.66) in Sonoma County, California. TTB undertook that action
in response to a petition filed by Gallo Family Vineyards, which owns a
vineyard near the southern end of the proposed expansion area. As
discussed below, TTB also proposed in Notice No. 90 to expand the
existing Northern Sonoma viticultural area (27 CFR 9.70) to encompass
all of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, including its
proposed expansion area.
Specifically, the petition proposed a 14,044-acre expansion of the
Russian River Valley viticultural area, which would increase the
existing viticultural area's acreage by approximately 9 percent, to
169,028 acres. The petitioner explained that approximately 550 acres of
the proposed expansion area were planted to grapes at the time of the
petition. The petitioner's Two Rock Ranch Vineyard, with 350 acres
planted to grapes, lies near the southern end of the proposed expansion
area.
The Russian River Valley viticultural area is located approximately
50 miles north of San Francisco in central Sonoma County, California.
The viticultural area was originally established by Treasury Decision
(T.D.) ATF-159, published in the Federal Register (48 FR 48812) on
October 21, 1983. It was expanded by 767 acres in T.D. TTB-7, published
in the Federal Register (68 FR 67367) on December 2,
[[Page 70867]]
2003, and again by 30,200 acres in T.D. TTB-32, published in the
Federal Register (70 FR 53297) on September 8, 2005. Although T.D. TTB-
32 states that the viticultural area covered 126,600 acres after the
2005 expansion, the current petition provides information updating the
present size of the viticultural area to a total of 154,984 acres.
The current Russian River Valley viticultural area, with the
exception of its southern tip, lies within the Northern Sonoma
viticultural area. The Northern Sonoma viticultural area, in turn, lies
largely within the Sonoma Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.116). The
Northern Sonoma and Sonoma Coast viticultural areas are both entirely
within the North Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.30).
The current Russian River Valley viticultural area also entirely
encompasses two smaller viticultural areas--in its northeastern corner,
the Chalk Hill viticultural area (27 CFR 9.52), and in the southwest,
the Green Valley of Russian River Valley viticultural area (27 CFR
9.57).
According to the petition, the proposed expansion would extend the
current viticultural area boundary south and east, encompassing land
just west of the cities of Rohnert Park and Cotati. The proposed
expansion area lies within the Sonoma Coast and North Coast
viticultural areas, but not within the Northern Sonoma viticultural
area. According to the petition, the proposed expansion area lies
almost entirely within the Russian River Valley watershed, is
historically part of the Russian River Valley, and shares all of the
significant distinguishing features of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area. The evidence submitted in support of the proposed
expansion is summarized below.
Name Evidence
The petition states that the proposed expansion area is widely
recognized as part of the Russian River watershed, a key criterion
cited in past rulemaking documents regarding the existing Russian River
Valley viticultural area. T.D. ATF-159 states that the Russian River
Valley viticultural area ``includes those areas through which flow the
Russian River or some of its tributaries * * *.'' Moreover, the
petition contends that before the establishment of the current
viticultural area boundary, the proposed expansion area was commonly
considered part of the Russian River Valley.
The petitioner included several pieces of evidence showing the
expansion area's inclusion in the Russian River watershed. A submitted
map shows that almost all of the proposed expansion area lies within
the Russian River watershed (see ``The California Interagency Watershed
Map of 1999,'' published by the California Resources Agency, updated
2004). The petition notes that the water drainage is through the Laguna
de Santa Rosa waterway beginning near the east side of the proposed
expansion area and flowing west and north through the current
viticultural area. Thus, the waterway provides a common connection
between the two areas.
The petitioner also included an informational brochure published by
the Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA), an association of local
governments and districts that coordinates regional programs to protect
or improve the quality of the Russian River watershed. A map in the
brochure shows that the watershed includes both the current
viticultural area and the area covered by the proposed expansion.
The petitioner submitted a letter from the RRWA that asks the
California Department of Transportation to place a sign marking the
southern boundary of the Russian River watershed at a point on
northbound Highway 101 near the City of Cotati in Sonoma County,
California. This point is on the southeastern portion of the boundary
of the proposed expansion area. The petition notes that the State
installed both the requested sign as well as an additional sign at
another point on the southern portion of the boundary of the proposed
expansion area.
Also submitted with the petition were 2002 water assessment data
published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This information
includes the expansion area in its assessment of the Russian River
watershed. Finally, the petitioner included a Russian River Valley area
tourism map that encompasses the proposed expansion area (see ``Russian
River Map,'' (http://russianrivertravel.com/).
Several documents relating to the agricultural and economic history
of Sonoma County were also submitted by the petitioner. The petition
states that these documents illustrate a shared history of grape
growing in the proposed expansion area and the current viticultural
area. For example, an 1893 survey compares the yields of individual
grape growers in the current viticultural area with those of growers in
the proposed expansion area (see ``History of the Sonoma Viticultural
District,'' by Ernest P. Peninou, Nomis Press, 1998). The petition
asserts that this document clearly shows that growers in the two areas
grew similar grape varieties under similar growing conditions with
similar yields.
A letter from Robert Theiller submitted with the petition describes
the family-owned Xavier Theiller Winery. The winery, now defunct,
operated in the proposed expansion area from 1904 to 1938. According to
Mr. Theiller, the defunct winery crushed grapes from both the area
encompassed by the current Russian River Valley viticultural area and
the area covered by the proposed expansion. The letter specifically
states that ``* * * people involved in grape growing and other
agriculture in the area of the winery knew that [the proposed expansion
area] was part of the Russian River Valley.''
The petition also includes a letter from wine historian William F.
Heintz. Mr. Heintz is the author of ``Wine and Viticulture History of
the Region Known as the Russian River Appellation'' (Russian River
Valley Winegrowers, 1999). In his letter, Mr. Heintz writes:
I agree with the observation in your petition that the proposed
expansion area and the main part of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area, which lies to the north, have historically been
part of one region in terms of common climate and geographic
features, settlement, and the development of agriculture and
transportation. For these reasons, I have always considered the
proposed expansion area and the area to the north that is in the
current Russian River Valley viticultural area to belong together.
In my opinion, the proposed expansion area is part of the same
historical district as the existing Russian River Valley
viticultural area.
Boundary Evidence
According to the petition, the 2005 expansion created an artificial
line for what became the southeast portion of the boundary. Proceeding
south down the US 101 corridor, it abruptly turns due west at Todd
Road. Consequently, on a map, the Russian River Valley viticultural
area appears to have had a ``bite'' taken out of its southeastern
corner, despite the fact that it and the proposed expansion area share
common features of climate, soil, and watershed.
The proposed expansion would change the southeastern portion of the
boundary of the current Russian River Valley viticultural area. At a
point where the current southern portion of the boundary now ends and
the boundary line abruptly turns north, the proposed new boundary line
would generally continue to follow the defining ridge on the southern
flank of the Russian River watershed. It would turn north at US 101,
eventually meeting the southeast corner of the existing boundary,
adding an area
[[Page 70868]]
almost entirely within the Russian River watershed.
Distinguishing Features
Climate
Past rulemakings regarding the Russian River Valley viticultural
area have stated that coastal fog greatly affects the area's climate.
T.D. TTB-32 at 70 FR 53298 states, for example, that ``Fog is the
single most unifying and significant feature of the previously
established Russian River Valley viticultural area.'' The petition
states that the proposed expansion area lies directly in the path of
the fog that moves from the ocean into southern and central Sonoma
County; thus, the same fog influences both the proposed expansion area
and the current viticultural area. Consequently, there is no ``fog
line'' dividing the current viticultural area and the proposed
expansion area, according to the petition.
The petitioner provided a report showing the effect of the fog on
the climate of the current viticultural area and the proposed expansion
area (see ``Sonoma County Climatic Zones,'' Paul Vossen, University of
California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986 (http://cesonoma.ucdavis.edu/)). The report describes the fog as passing
through the Petaluma Gap and into the expansion area, as follows:
The major climatic influence in Sonoma County is determined by
the marine (ocean) air flow and the effect of the geography
diverting that air flow. During an average summer there are many
days when fog maintains a band of cold air all around the coastline
and cool breezes blow a fog bank in through the Petaluma Gap
northward toward Santa Rosa and northwestward toward Sebastopol.
This fog bank is accompanied by a rapid decrease in temperature
which can be as much as 50 [ordm] F.
Additionally, the petitioner provided an online article delineating
the presence of fog in the proposed expansion area (``Fog Noir,'' by
Rod Smith, September/October 2005 at http://www.privateclubs.com/Archives/2005-sept-oct/wine_fog-noir.htm). The article describes
satellite images of fog moving through the Russian River Valley, as
follows:
Until recently everyone assumed that the Russian River itself
drew the fog inland and distributed it over the terrain west of
Santa Rosa. Supplemental fog, it was thought, also came in from the
southwest over the marshy lowlands along the coast between Point
Reyes and Bodega Bay--the so-called Petaluma Wind Gap.
In fact, it now appears to be the other way around. A new
generation of satellite photography, sensitive enough to pick up
translucent layers of moist air near the ground, shows for the first
time the movement of the fog throughout the Russian River Valley
region.
* * * * *
In Bobbitt's snapshot, the fog pours, literally pours, through
the Petaluma Gap. The ocean dumps it ashore and the inland heat sink
reels it in * * *.
According to the petition, the proposed expansion area also has the
same ``coastal cool'' climate as the current Russian River Valley
viticultural area. T.D. ATF-159, T.D. TTB-7, and T.D. TTB-32 refer to
the Winkler degree-day system, which classifies climatic regions for
grape growing. In the Winkler system, heat accumulation is measured
during the typical grape-growing season from April to October. One
degree day accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean
temperature is above 50 degrees, the minimum temperature required for
grapevine growth (see ``General Viticulture,'' Albert J. Winkler,
University of California Press, 1974). As noted in T.D. ATF-159, the
Russian River Valley viticultural area is termed ``coastal cool'' and
has an annual range from 2,000 to 2,800 degree days.
The petition concedes that the ``Sonoma County Climate Zones''
report cited above would place most of the proposed expansion area and
part of the 2005 expansion area within the ``marine'' zone, instead of
the warmer coastal cool zone. However, the petition argues that, at the
time of the 2005 expansion, TTB recognized that more current
information had superseded the information in the 1986 report. Further,
it is asserted in the petition that the climate information included in
the exhibits shows that the proposed expansion area actually has a
coastal cool climate.
Using the Winkler system, the petitioner provided a table that
includes a complete degree day data set for the April through October
growing season at seven vineyards, including the petitioner's Two Rock
Ranch Vineyard, which is located in the southern part of the proposed
expansion area, and the petitioner's Laguna Ranch and MacMurray Ranch
Vineyards, both of which are located in the Russian River Valley
viticultural area as established in 1983. For the petitioner's
vineyards, the data are an average of the degree days for the three
year period of 1996-1998; for vineyards that were added to the Russian
River Valley viticultural area as part of the 2005 expansion, the data
are the same 2001 data used by TTB in establishing the 2005 expansion
in T.D. TTB-32. The table is reproduced below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vineyard Annual degree days Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osley West................................ 2,084 2005 expansion.
Two Rock Ranch............................ 2,227 Proposed expansion.
Bloomfield................................ 2,332 2005 expansion.
Laguna Ranch.............................. 2,403 1983 establishment.
Osley East................................ 2,567 2005 expansion.
MacMurray Ranch........................... 2,601 1983 establishment.
Le Carrefour.............................. 2,636 2005 expansion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition states that the table shows that all seven vineyards,
including the Two Rock Ranch in the proposed expansion area, fall
within the coastal cool climate range of 2,000 to 2,800 annual degree
days, and notes the consistency of the degree day data for the
vineyards located within the 1983 establishment of the viticultural
area, the 2005 expansion, and the current proposed expansion area. The
petition concludes that this degree day data show that the proposed
expansion area has the same climate as the current Russian River Valley
viticultural area. Further, the petitioner provided a raster map
showing that annual average degree days in the proposed expansion area
are within the same range as that of much of the existing viticultural
area (see ``Growing Degree Days'' for Sonoma County (1951-80 average),
published by the Spatial Climate Analysis Service, Oregon State
University at http://www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/index.html).
The petition also notes that 940 was the annual average number of
hours between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit at the Two Rock Ranch
Vineyard during the April through October growing season from 1996-
1998. Based on the
[[Page 70869]]
``Sonoma County Climatic Zones'' map, this average lies within the 800-
to 1100-hour range that characterizes the coastal cool zone. The marine
zone has fewer than 800 hours between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit
during the growing season.
The petition includes a report, written at the request of the
petitioner, which includes a detailed analysis of the climate of the
proposed expansion area. The petitioner requested expert commentary on
the proposed expansion area, and the petition states that the report's
author, Patrick L. Shabram, geographic consultant, has extensive
experience in Sonoma County viticulture.
In the report, Mr. Shabram disputes the idea that the proposed
expansion area is in a marine climate zone and cites three main factors
in support of his position. First, successful viticulture would not be
possible in a true marine zone because of insufficient solar radiation.
Second, the proposed expansion area is well inland as compared to the
rest of the marine zone; climatic conditions in the proposed expansion
area would not be characteristic of a marine zone. Finally, Mr. Shabram
states that the petitioner's climate data (summarized above) ``* * *
clearly demonstrates that the area should be classified as `Coastal
Cool,' rather than the Marine climate type.''
Mr. Shabram provided the petitioner with a map that depicts all the
proposed expansion area as belonging to the coastal cool zone (see
``Revised Sonoma County Climatic Zones of the Russian River Valley
Area,'' by Patrick L. Shabram, 2007, based on ``Sonoma County Climatic
Zones'' and ``Revised Coastal Cool/Marine Climate Zones Boundary,'' by
Patrick L. Shabram).
Topography and Elevation
According to the petition, the southernmost portion of the proposed
expansion area is on the ``Merced Hills'' of the Wilson Grove
formation. These are gently rolling hills predominantly on 5 to 30
percent slopes. The current Russian River Valley viticultural area does
not encompass these hills; the proposed expansion area includes a
portion of them.
The northern portion of the proposed expansion area comprises the
essentially flat Santa Rosa Plain. The plain is consistent with the
portion of the current Russian River Valley viticultural area that
wraps around both the west and north sides of the proposed expansion
area. Elevations in the proposed expansion area range from 715 feet to
75 feet above sea level, which are similar to elevations in adjoining
areas of the current Russian River Valley viticultural area.
Soils and Geology
The petition discusses the similarities between the soils of the
proposed expansion area and those of the current viticultural area
based on a soil association map (see ``Soil Survey of Sonoma County,
California,'' online, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). The soils on the Merced Hills
included in the proposed expansion area formed mainly in sandstone
rocks of the underlying Wilson Grove formation. This formation, which
formed 3 to 5 million years ago under a shallow sea, is characterized
by low lying, rolling hills beginning just south of the Russian River
near Forestville, arching southeast through Sebastopol, and ending at
Penngrove. According to the petition, the soils underlain by this
formation are well suited to growing grapes in vineyards.
The petition includes the following quotation discussing the
suitability of the soils to growing grapes in the proposed expansion
area:
The sandy loam soils of the apple-growing region of Gold Ridge-
Sebastopol form as a direct result of breakdown of Wilson Grove
rock. The low ridge running from Forestville to Sebastopol and south
to Cotati is the classic terroir of this association, now being
recognized as prime land and climate for Pinot Noir and Chardonnay.
(``Diverse Geology/Soils Impact Wine Quality,'' by Terry Wright,
Professor of Geology, Sonoma State University, ``Practical Winery &
Vineyard,'' September/October 2001, Vol. XXIII, No. 2.)
The petition notes that the Wilson Grove formation underlies the
current Russian River Valley viticultural area, but the current
southeastern portion of its border cuts north to south through the
formation, midway between Sebastopol and Cotati. However, the soil
associations on either side of this southeastern portion of the current
Russian River Valley viticultural area are identical. The Goldridge-
Cotati-Sebastopol soil association is nearly continuous throughout the
formation. The petition states that areas of Sebastopol sandy loam are
in the Laguna Ranch Vineyard just north of the town of Sebastopol (in
the current viticultural area) and also in the Two Rock Ranch Vineyard
in the proposed expansion area, just west of the town of Cotati.
The petition states that the Clear Lake-Reyes association is in the
portion of the proposed expansion area north of the Merced Hills. The
soils in this association are poorly drained, nearly level to gently
sloping clays, and clay loams in basins. This soils association is in
the southeast portion of the Santa Rosa plain and also in pockets
further north, almost directly west of the city of Santa Rosa. The
Huichica-Wright-Zamora association is further north in the proposed
expansion area. The soils of this association are somewhat poorly
drained to well drained, nearly level to strongly sloping loams to
silty loams on low bench terraces and alluvial fans. These soils are
common in the middle and northern portions of the Santa Rosa plain, and
are predominant in the eastern portion of the current Russian River
Valley viticultural area, including the city of Santa Rosa, and in the
proposed expansion area.
The petition notes that the ``Soil Survey of Sonoma County,
California'' soil association map cited above shows that the current
viticultural area boundary arbitrarily cuts directly through four major
soil associations: Goldridge-Cotati-Sebastopol, Clear Lake-Reyes,
Steinbeck-Los Osos, and Huichica-Wright-Zamora. The soils and the
geology in the proposed expansion area are nearly identical to those in
the adjacent areas of the current Russian River Valley viticultural
area.
TTB noted in Notice No. 90 that T.D. ATF-159, which established the
Russian River Valley viticultural area, does not identify any
predominant soils or indicate any unique soils of the viticultural
area.
Grape Brix Comparison
The petition compares Brix for grapes grown in both the current
viticultural area and the proposed expansion area. Brix is the quantity
of dissolved solids in grape juice, expressed as grams of sucrose in
100 grams of solution at 60 degrees Fahrenheit (see 27 CFR 24.10).
Citing a brochure published by the Russian River Winegrowers
Association, the petition notes that Pinot Noir and Chardonnay are the
two most prominent grape varieties grown in the current Russian River
Valley viticultural area. The successful cultivation of the Pinot Noir
grape, in particular, has been considered a hallmark of the Russian
River Valley viticultural area, and the Pinot Gris grape variety
recently has been growing in popularity.
Data submitted with the petition show the 4-year average Brix
comparisons for the period 2003-6 for the Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, and
Pinot Gris varieties among three vineyards in the current Russian River
Valley viticultural area and in the Two Rock Ranch Vineyard
[[Page 70870]]
within the proposed expansion area (see the table below). The petition
asserts that the Brix levels for each variety at all four of the
vineyards are very similar, reflecting similar growing conditions for
the grapes.
2003-6 Average Brix for Some Winegrapes Grown on Ranches in the Current Viticultural Area and the Proposed
Viticultural Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Brix
Ranch -----------------------------------------------------
Pinot Noir Chardonnay Pinot Gris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laguna North.............................................. 25.04 23.79 ................
Del Rio................................................... 26.69 23.24 24.68
MacMurray................................................. 25.77 ................ 24.71
Two Rock *................................................ 25.80 23.55 24.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Located in the proposed expansion area.
In addition to the petition evidence summarized above, the petition
included six letters of support from area grape growers and winery
owners. The supporters generally assert that the proposed expansion
area has the same grape growing conditions as the current Russian River
Valley viticultural area. The petition also included a ``Petition of
Support: Russian River Valley AVA Expansion'' with 208 signatures.
Opposition to the Proposed Expansion
Prior to and during review of the petition for the expansion, TTB
received by mail, facsimile transmission, and email more than 50 pieces
of correspondence opposing the proposed expansion. The correspondence
generally asserts that the proposed expansion area falls outside the
coastal fog line and thus has a different climate than that of the
current viticultural area. The opponents of the proposed expansion are
mostly vineyard or winery owners from the existing Russian River Valley
viticultural area. Several of the opponents state that even though
grapes grown in the proposed expansion area ``may eventually be brought
to similar Brix, pH and total acidity maturity, the bloom and harvest
dates are much later than in the Russian River Valley.'' TTB, when
discussing this opposing correspondence in Notice No. 90, also noted
that the assertions in the correspondence were not accompanied by any
specific data that contradicted the petitioner's submitted evidence. In
the Comments Invited portion of Notice No. 90, TTB specifically
indicated that comments in response to the Notice should be supported
with specific data or other appropriate information.
Expansion of the Northern Sonoma Viticultural Area
In Notice No. 90, TTB noted that prior to the 2005 expansion, all
of the Russian River Valley viticultural area had been within the
Northern Sonoma viticultural area. TTB further noted, however, that
portions of the current boundaries of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area and of the Green Valley of Russian River Valley
viticultural area (which lies entirely within the Russian River Valley
area) currently extend beyond the south and southeast portions of the
Northern Sonoma viticultural area boundary line. The proposed new
14,044-acre expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area
similarly is outside the boundary line of the Northern Sonoma
viticultural area.
So that all of the Russian River Valley viticultural area would
again fall within the Northern Sonoma viticultural area, as was the
case prior to the 2005 expansion, TTB also proposed in Notice No. 90 a
southern and southeastern expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural
area boundary line to encompass all of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area, including the currently proposed expansion of the
Russian River Valley viticultural area. As a result, the Northern
Sonoma viticultural area would increase in size by 44,244 acres to
394,088 acres, or by 9 percent. The following information was provided
in support of this proposed expansion.
Name and Boundary Evidence
The Northern Sonoma viticultural area was established on May 17,
1985, by T.D. ATF-204 (50 FR 20560), which stated at 50 FR 20561:
* * * Six approved viticultural areas are located entirely
within the Northern Sonoma viticultural area as follows: Chalk Hill,
Alexander Valley, Sonoma County Green Valley [subsequently renamed
Green Valley of Russian River Valley], Dry Creek Valley, Russian
River Valley, and Knights Valley.
The Sonoma County Green Valley and Chalk Hill areas are each
entirely within the Russian River Valley area. The boundaries of the
Alexander Valley, Dry Creek Valley, Russian River Valley, and
Knights Valley areas all fit perfectly together dividing northern
Sonoma County into four large areas. The Northern Sonoma area uses
all of the outer boundaries of these four areas with the exception
of an area southwest of the Dry Creek Valley area and west of the
Russian River Valley area * * *
The originally established Northern Sonoma viticultural area was
expanded by T.D. ATF-233, published in the Federal Register (51 FR
30352) on August 26, 1986 and, again, by T.D. ATF-300, published in the
Federal Register (55 FR 32400) on August 9, 1990.
The current southern portion of the boundary line of the Northern
Sonoma viticultural area, west to east, follows California State
Highway 12 from its intersection with Bohemian Highway, through the
town of Sebastopol, to its intersection with Fulton Road. Although T.D.
ATF-204 does not explain the basis for the choice of California State
Highway 12 as the southern portion of the Northern Sonoma boundary
line, TTB notes that at that time, California State Highway 12 also
formed the southern portion of the boundary line of the Russian River
Valley viticultural area.
T.D. ATF-204 included information regarding the geographical
meaning of ``Northern Sonoma'' as distinct from the rest of Sonoma
County. Although a Web search conducted by TTB failed to disclose
conclusive information regarding current non-viticultural usage of
``Northern Sonoma'' as a geographical term, a Web search for ``Southern
Sonoma County'' did disclose specific geographical data. The Southern
Sonoma County Resource Conservation District (SCC-RCD) Web site has
Sonoma County maps and describes the district as including the
``southern slopes of Mecham Hill'' (alternative spelling of
``Meacham,'' as on the USGS map), in the northern portion of the
Petaluma River watershed in southern Sonoma County. Meacham Hill,
according to the USGS Cotati map, lies 1.25 miles southeast of the area
included in the expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area
proposed in Notice No. 90. Further, the SCC-RCD maps show that the
southern
[[Page 70871]]
Sonoma County watershed excludes the Gold Ridge District, which
comprises much of the Russian River watershed, including the Russian
River Valley viticultural area and the area proposed in Notice No. 90
to be added to it.
Sonoma County Relocation, a real estate service, defines southern
Sonoma County as extending south from the town of Penngrove. According
to the USGS Cotati map, Penngrove lies 2.4 miles east-southeast of the
proposed expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area boundary
line. The City of Petaluma, the southernmost large population center in
Sonoma County, lies 6 miles southeast of the proposed expansion of the
Northern Sonoma viticultural area.
Based on the above, TTB stated in Notice No. 90 that it is
reasonable to conclude that the name ``Northern Sonoma,'' as distinct
from southern Sonoma County, includes all of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area, including the proposed expansion of that area that
was the subject of Notice No. 90.
Comments on the proposed expansions were originally due on or
before October 20, 2008. However, on October 29, 2008, in response to a
request filed on behalf of the Russian River Valley Boundary Integrity
Coalition, a group of area vineyards and wineries, TTB reopened the
comment period for Notice No. 90, with comments due on or before
December 19, 2008 (see Notice No. 91 published in the Federal Register
at 73 FR 64286 on October 29, 2008).
Comments Received in Response to Notice No. 90
TTB received 171 comments in response to Notice No. 90. Of those,
26 comments support the proposal to expand the Russian River Valley and
Northern Sonoma viticultural areas, while 133 are in opposition. The 12
remaining comments include one request to extend the comment period,
one request for a public hearing, three comments from the petitioner's
consultants defending their analyses and credentials, various copies of
media reports about the proposed rulemaking, and other comments
requesting actions beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
The origins of comments are as follows: 109 comments are from grape
growers and/or wineries; 26 have no identified affiliation; 13 are from
self-described consumers; 8 are from the petitioner or its two
consultants; 7 are from grape grower associations (Russian River Valley
Winegrowers, Russian River Valley Boundary Integrity Coalition, Allied
Grape Growers, and Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance); and 5 are from
other wine professionals (writers, retailers, and educators).
Supporting Comments
The 26 comments supporting the regulatory action proposed in Notice
No. 90 are from: 20 area grape growers; the petitioner and its two
consultants; Constellation Brands, Inc.; and Allied Grape Growers, a
California wine grape marketing cooperative. Most of these commenters
state that they support the proposal and that they believe that the
petitioner's evidence demonstrates that the proposed expansion area
should be considered part of the Russian River Valley AVA. In response
to comments from opponents, the petitioner and its consultants
submitted additional arguments and evidence to support the proposal;
these are discussed below where appropriate.
Opposing Comments
Comments opposing the regulatory action proposed in Notice No. 90
are from: 78 area grape growers and wineries; all 13 of the self-
identified consumers; the membership of the Russian River Valley
Winegrowers Association (the Association's board voted to take a
neutral position on the expansion issue); the Russian River Valley
Boundary Integrity Coalition (RRVBIC), which also requested a public
hearing; and wine professionals. The most common reasons provided for
opposing the proposed expansion of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area are that the proposed expansion area is not known to
be part of the Russian River Valley and that the proposed expansion
area has a different climate from that of the existing Russian River
Valley viticultural area. The vast majority of opposing comments
address only the petitioned-for expansion of the Russian River Valley;
only a few comments specifically address the proposed expansion of the
Northern Sonoma viticultural area. Unless otherwise noted, the opposing
comments discussed below address only the petitioned-for Russian River
Valley expansion.
Discussion of Comments
Name Evidence
Many opposing commenters state that they do not believe that the
proposed expansion area is considered part of the Russian River Valley,
and two opposing commenters also state that the proposed expansion area
is not part of northern Sonoma. Most of these commenters refer to the
proposed expansion area as the Cotati or Rohnert Park areas, for two
cities adjacent to the area, or as the Petaluma Gap, as discussed in
more detail below.
Seven commenters state that the proposed expansion area is
considered part of southern Sonoma County; the Russian River Valley
viticultural area, in contrast, is considered part of northern Sonoma
County and is mostly encompassed by the Northern Sonoma viticultural
area. Hector Bedolla of the RRVBIC, in his comment (numbered by TTB as
comment 7), states that it is ``ridiculous'' to add an area ten miles
from the Marin County line (Marin County is south of Sonoma County) to
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area. Another commenter, Barry C.
Lawrence (comment 118), submitted four quotes from Web sites and area
businesses describing Cotati, Rohnert Park, and Petaluma as part of
southern Sonoma County. Mr. Lawrence also reports polling four Cotati
and Rohnert Park city and school officials to ask whether their area is
in the Russian River Valley or in southern Sonoma County; according to
Mr. Lawrence, the officials all responded ``no'' and ``yes,''
respectively. A few commenters note that the petitioner's vineyard in
the proposed expansion area, Two Rock Ranch, is named for the town of
Two Rock, which is located southwest of the proposed area; the
commenters argue that this name shows that the area is oriented to the
Petaluma Gap region to the southwest, rather than to the Russian River
Valley to the north.
A few commenters submitted historical references as evidence that
the proposed expansion area has not historically been associated with
the Russian River Valley. One of these, Maurice Nugent of Nugent
Vineyards Inc. (comment 12), cited ``History of Sonoma County,
California, 1850'' as stating, ``The lower end of this vast [Sonoma
County] plain is Petaluma, the central portion is Santa Rosa, and the
northern section, the Russian River Valleys.'' Mr. Nugent notes that
the proposed expansion area is south of the current city of Santa Rosa.
Dr. William K. Crowley, a Professor Emeritus of Geography at Sonoma
State University in Rohnert Park, submitted a forty-one page analysis
of the petition on behalf of the RRVBIC. This analysis (comment 120)
included several maps and documents as name evidence. Many of these
documents show that, in the nineteenth century, the proposed expansion
area was part of Petaluma Township, an area considered part of southern
Sonoma County. The Russian River Township, Dr. Crowley notes, was much
further to the north. Dr. Crowley also provided more recent evidence in
[[Page 70872]]
the form of two USGS maps published in 1958 and 1970 that label the
proposed expansion area as the Cotati Valley, as well as a map of
Sonoma County winegrowing areas from a 1977 article that he wrote for
``The California Geographer,'' which shows a Russian River Valley that
does not include the proposed expansion area.
Several commenters state that they found the petitioner's name
evidence to be insufficient. Other than evidence regarding the Russian
River watershed (discussed in more detail below), the petitioner's name
evidence consisted only of a tourism map of the Russian River Valley,
two letters from individuals (one a local wine historian) stating their
views that the proposed expansion area has historically been associated
with the Russian River Valley, and several documents regarding the
agricultural and economic history of Sonoma County that the petitioner
contends show the expansion area and the AVA share a similar
agricultural and economic history.
A few opposing commenters note that the petitioner's tourism map,
taken from the Web site Russian River Travel.com (http://www.russianrivertravel.com/), shows nearly all of Sonoma County and
portions of neighboring counties, so the map is therefore too general
to be used as evidence of what is part of the Russian River Valley. One
of these commenters, Dr. Crowley, also argues that other pages within
the travel Web site support the view that the proposed expansion area
is not considered part of the Russian River Valley. For example, the
Web site's home page lists cities within the Russian River Valley that
tourists might visit. He states that, although the list is extensive,
``it does not include either Cotati or Rohnert Park, the towns
partially within the petitioned area, and both part of the Russian
River watershed, because obviously the petitioned area is not seen as
part of the Russian River Valley.''
Several opposing commenters state that the proposed expansion area
does not share a similar agricultural history with the Russian River
Valley. According to these commenters, the proposed expansion area has
been known in recent decades for its poultry and dairy farms, while the
Russian River Valley has historically been a fruit growing area. Before
grapes were the dominant crop, these commenters note, the Russian River
Valley was known for apple orchards. Commenters state that these
differences are due to climatic differences between the two areas.
Maurice Nugent, citing data from the 1893 phylloxera survey, states
that the petitioned-for expansion area had far fewer vineyards at that
time than the current viticultural area to the north.
The Petaluma Gap
Fifty-two commenters argue that the petitioned-for expansion area
is part of a region known as the Petaluma Gap rather than the Russian
River Valley. The Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance (comment 44), an
association of growers and wineries formed in 2006, submitted a comment
describing the Petaluma Gap as a distinct winegrowing area within the
Sonoma Coast viticultural area. The Alliance submitted a map entitled
``Sonoma Coast (Southern Section) American Viticultural Area with the
Petaluma Gap,'' on which an area of southern Sonoma County and Northern
Marin County is prominently labeled the ``Petaluma Gap.'' TTB observes
that a portion of the petitioned-for expansion area and a portion of
the current Russian River Valley viticultural area are located within
the boundary line for the Petaluma Gap on the map. Two other
commenters, Dr. Crowley and Dow Vineyards (comment 97), also submitted
copies of this map to demonstrate that the proposed expansion area is
part of the Petaluma Gap rather than Russian River Valley.
Four commenters in favor of the proposal dispute the contention
that the petitioned-for expansion area is known as the Petaluma Gap.
One of these, Patrick Shabram (comment 17), states that the Petaluma
Gap is ``an area of relatively lower hills in the Sonoma and Marin
coastal highlands.'' He further states that ``the term `Petaluma Gap'
is sometimes popularly used to refer to the area southwest of the
proposed expansion and northwest of the city of Petaluma.'' In
addition, two of these commenters (the petitioner, comment 67, and
Cameron Sustainable Ag, LLC, comment 62) state that the Petaluma Gap
map was recently developed by an opponent of the proposed expansion in
an effort to discredit the expansion. These commenters also state that
a portion of the current viticultural area is included within the map's
boundaries for the Petaluma Gap, so the commenters contend that the map
should not be considered valid evidence.
Russian River Watershed
Eleven comments opposing the petitioned-for expansion note that a
portion of the proposed expansion area (that is, part of Two Rock
Ranch) is not within the Russian River watershed. TTB notes that the
petition acknowledges this fact, but the petition also states that this
portion is very small (2 percent of the proposed expansion area) and
that a similar portion (1.43 percent) of the current Russian River
Valley viticultural area is also not within the Russian River
watershed.
Thirteen commenters acknowledge that the proposed expansion area is
(mostly) within the watershed, but these commenters note that the
watershed is much larger than the current Russian River viticultural
area and extends several miles north into Mendocino County. One
commenter (Siebert Vineyard, comment 36) states that 99.7 percent of
the Russian River watershed is not in the Russian River Valley
viticultural area. These commenters also point out that the watershed
encompasses all or part of several other viticultural areas (for
example, Alexander Valley, Dry Creek Valley, Mendocino, and Redwood
Valley), which are acknowledged to have different growing conditions
than the Russian River Valley viticultural area. Thus, they argue,
merely being in the Russian River watershed is not reason enough to be
included in the Russian River Valley viticultural area.
Geographical Features
Climate
A large number of opposing commenters assert that the petitioned-
for expansion area has a different climate than the existing Russian
River Valley viticultural area. Most of these commenters state that the
proposed expansion area is cooler and windier, and lacks the Russian
River Valley viticultural area's characteristic ``coastal fog.''
Comments regarding fog and wind are discussed in greater detail later
in this comment discussion.
Five opposing commenters make specific criticisms of the
petitioner's data regarding degree days. To recap the petition data,
using the Winkler system, the petitioner submitted a complete degree
day data set for the years 1996-1998 for three of its vineyards: Laguna
Ranch and MacMurray Ranch, both located within the Russian River Valley
viticultural area as established in 1983, and Two Rock Ranch, located
within the proposed expansion area. The annual degree day averages for
the three-year period were then compared to the 2001 degree day data
for four other Russian River Valley vineyards, which were published in
the 2005 rulemaking document that expanded the viticultural area.
The opposing commenters note that the degree day data covers only a
three-year period from a decade ago, and assert that the data provide
an insufficient basis for stating that the
[[Page 70873]]
expansion area has the same climate as the Russian River Valley
viticultural area. The commenters also note that data were submitted
for only one location in the proposed expansion area. Frank R. Bailey,
III, of Bailey Vineyards (comment 88), states: ``One data point in the
expansion area is not sufficient to prove anything about climate in the
14,000 acre area, much less overturn climate reports that were prepared
with 30 years of data * * *. Furthermore, the petition shows that this
one data point only uses a selective 3 year period of time. This one
location did not even include scientifically randomized or long term
information * * *. This selective use of data is not credible.'' Paul
Ahvenainen of F. Korbel & Bros., Inc. (comment 68) similarly states:
``The petitioner wishes to add approximately 14,000 acres of land to
the RRV using only one data point in the expansion area. That data
point is in the extreme southeast corner of the expansion area. * * *
Three years is not enough data to accurately portray a climate
accurately. I would have expected the petitioner to supply data from
the following ten years.'' Dr. William K. Crowley further states: ``It
is also reasonable to ask why the selected years were used for
presentation. The petition was filed in 2008, but the latest data cited
are from 1998. What do the data for the years since 1998 look like?
Three years of data from one site are not sufficient evidence for
moving a viticultural area boundary.''
Mr. Ahvenainen and Dr. Crowley also note that the petitioner's data
show that Two Rock Ranch accumulated only 1,925 degree days in 1998.
According to the Winkler system, 1,925 degree days would place the site
in the cooler ``marine'' zone instead of the ``coastal cool'' zone
which characterizes the Russian River Valley viticultural area. [TTB
notes that the degree day data for each of the three years contained in
the 1996-1998 degree day averages for the petitioner's vineyards are
contained in Exhibit 21 to the petition; Exhibit 21 also shows that the
degree days for Two Rock Ranch in 1996 and 1997 were 2,219 and 2,537,
respectively; these data were not included in Notice No. 90.]
As described above, the petition also included a detailed analysis
of the proposed expansion area's climate that was prepared by Patrick
Shabram, a geographic consultant who claims extensive experience in
Sonoma County viticulture. In this analysis, Mr. Shabram states that
the petitioner's climate data, which showed an average of 940 degree
days of temperatures between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the
growing season from 1996-1998 for Two Rock Ranch vineyard (within the
proposed expansion area), demonstrate that the area should be
classified as ``coastal cool'' rather than as a ``marine'' climate
type. Mr. Shabram also provided the petitioner with a climate zone map
that he drafted in which all of the proposed expansion area is depicted
as belonging to the coastal cool zone. This map is a revision of an
earlier climate map entitled ``Sonoma County Climatic Zones'' (Paul
Vossen, University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma
County, 1986). The earlier map, which was included in the petition and
also submitted by a few opposing commenters, clearly depicts the
proposed expansion area as having a marine climate and the Russian
River Valley viticultural area as having a coastal cool climate.
Eight commenters disagree with Mr. Shabram's conclusions regarding
the proposed expansion area's climate. In particular, these commenters
disagree with Mr. Shabram's revisions to the ``Sonoma County Climatic
Zones'' map based on the petitioner's data. The earlier map, they
state, was developed by Paul Vossen and R.L. Sisson after analyzing
thirty years of Sonoma County climate data, so the earlier map is more
credible than Mr. Shabram's analysis, which is based on only three
years of data from one location. Two of these commenters (Mr.
Ahvenainen and Dr. Crowley) further state that Mr. Shabram contradicts
earlier statements that Mr. Shabram made in his 1998 master's thesis
about climate. Dr. Crowley quotes Mr. Shabram as stating in this thesis
that a researcher's climate work was ``somewhat suspect because [it]
use[s] data that were taken over only a ten year period.'' The
petitioner and Mr. Shabram submitted rebuttal comments (comments 17,
18, and 67) defending Mr. Shabram's analysis, arguing that newer data
collected with more modern methods should supersede the older climate
map. The petitioner and Mr. Shabram also point out that a vineyard
currently in the Russian River Valley viticultural area is similarly
located within the older map's marine climate zone.
Fog
T.D. ATF-159, which established the Russian River Valley
viticultural area, states that the viticultural area includes those
areas ``where there is significant climate effect from coastal fogs.''
The petition argues that the same fog that affects the existing
viticultural area also affects the proposed expansion area.
On the other hand, however, some commenters argue that the proposed
expansion area has more fog, or fog of a different quality, than the
fog that affects the existing Russian River Valley viticultural area.
Most of these commenters state that the proposed expansion area has
marine fog, rather than the coastal fog that affects the existing
viticultural area. According to these commenters, marine fog is much
heavier and colder than coastal fog, thus creating a different climate.
One commenter, Siebert Vineyards, argues that ``the defining
characteristic of the Russian River Valley AVA is not the presence of
the fog itself, but the balance between the [warmer] inland valley
climate and the fog.'' Another commenter, Dr. Crowley, states that fog
intrusions characterize all of western Sonoma County as well as
counties to the north and south, so fog alone is not a sufficient
reason to include an area in the Russian River Valley viticultural
area.
Wind
Twenty-five commenters state that the petitioned-for expansion area
is much windier than the existing Russian River Valley viticultural
area. One comment, from Nunes Vineyard (comment 53), includes links to
technical articles about how wind affects grapevines. This commenter
argues that the wind in the proposed expansion area causes grapes from
that area to develop different color, flavor, and aroma compounds than
those from the existing viticultural area, resulting in wines with
different characteristics. Some of these commenters note that wind
breaks consisting of eucalyptus trees are planted throughout the
proposed expansion area, but not in the existing Russian River Valley
viticultural area. Four commenters note that there are high wind
warning signs in the proposed area, located on Highway 101 about \1/4\
mile north of Two Rock Ranch. Mr. Ahvenainen, who submitted a photo of
one of these signs, states that they are the only such signs in Sonoma
County. Another commenter notes that a winery in the expansion area is
named Windy Hill Vineyard & Winery.
The petitioner responds that opponents submitted no hard evidence
regarding wind, and that wind breaks and vineyard names are inadequate
evidence to demonstrate the existence and effect of wind in the
proposed expansion area. The petitioner's response further notes that a
Windy Hill Ranch is located in the current Russian River Valley
viticultural area. The petitioner also included with its comment wind
speed data collected from several sites within the current viticultural
area and the proposed
[[Page 70874]]
expansion area. Some of the data is from California Irrigation
Management Information System (CIMIS) weather stations, while the
remaining data are ``from weather stations positioned on vineyards.''
The petitioner notes that the CIMIS data show that the Petaluma station
(ostensibly in the Petaluma Gap, but not in the petitioned-for
expansion area) recorded winds no stronger than winds in the existing
viticultural area. The data also show that wind speeds from Two Rock
Ranch (not a CIMIS station) are no stronger than those within the
existing viticultural area. In response, five commenters argue that the
petitioner's self-collected wind data are not reliable. These
commenters state that the placement of the measuring device in a
sheltered site, such as on the lee side of a windy hill or close to the
ground, could produce readings that are not typical of the area.
Vegetation
Several commenters state that the petitioned-for expansion area is
nearly treeless and has little vegetation compared to the existing
Russian River Valley viticultural area, which they describe as rich in
redwoods and oaks. Three of these commenters submitted photographs
showing the contrasting vegetation of the two areas. In this regard,
Bailey Vineyards states: ``One hallmark feature of the Russian River
Valley area is the ubiquitous redwood forest in the background of every
vineyard or vista of the Russian River Valley * * * they are long
standing evidence of the qualities of fog drip, humidity, soil type and
hydration of the soil. The proposed expansion area is not in the
vicinity of redwood trees * * *.''
In response to these comments, the petitioner submitted a map
entitled ``Russian River Watershed Vegetation'' issued by the
California Department of Fish & Game, which the petitioner argues shows
that both the existing viticultural area and the petitioned-for
expansion area share similar natural vegetation. The petitioner also
states that its Sonoma County personnel have observed no differences in
vegetation between the two areas.
Harvest Dates
Several opposing commenters state that they have observed the
petitioner picking its grapes at Two Rock Ranch later in the season
than growers in the Russian River Valley viticultural area. This, they
state, is an indication of the proposed expansion area's climate. In
response, the petitioner argues in its comments that harvest dates are
not significant because they can be manipulated by factors other than
climate, such as irrigation practices, canopy management, and crop
load. Notwithstanding these arguments, the petitioner provided harvest
dates for Two Rock Ranch and for its vineyards located within the
existing viticultural area, which show that grapes in both areas were
picked in the same ``harvest window,'' according to the petitioner.
Comments Regarding Issues Outside the Scope of Part 9
Numerous commenters cite various reasons for opposition to the
proposed expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area that
do not relate to the regulatory criteria set forth in 27 CFR 9.12 for
viticultural area petitions. The points made by these commenters
included the following:
Approval of the proposal will harm growers/wineries in the
current Russian River Valley viticultural area. Many of these
commenters believe that the proposed expansion will result in lower
grape prices. Other commenters state that small growers will not be
able to compete with the petitioner, one of the world's largest wine
companies. A few of these commenters further state that approving the
petitioned-for expansion goes against TTB's mission to ensure a ``fair
and even marketplace.''
With respect to this point and the potential effect on small grape
growers, TTB notes that the Allied Grape Growers (comment 24) state
that they do not believe that the proposed expansion would lower grape
prices. TTB also notes that the petitioner already has vineyards
located within the 154,984-acre Russian River Valley viticultural area,
so the approval of the petitioned-for expansion area would not
introduce the petitioner to the marketplace for wines or grapes from
that viticultural area. Further, according to the petition, the
petitioner's Two Rock Ranch Vineyard, which is located in the 14,044-
acre petitioned-for expansion to the Russian River Valley viticultural
area, is only 350 acres. By comparison, there are over 15,000 acres of
vineyards in the current viticultural area, according to the Russian
River Valley Winegrowers Web site (see http://www.rrvw.org/ava-boundary). The petitioner's 350 vineyard acres represents less than 2.5
percent of the vineyard acres currently within the Russian River Valley
viticultural area.
Wines from the petitioned-for expansion area taste
different from those from the existing Russian River Valley
viticultural area. Although most of these comments merely cite
differences in taste, a few state that wines from the proposed
expansion area are ``inferior.'' These commenters argue that these
differences will confuse consumers and ultimately hurt the reputation
and/or sales of wineries and growers currently in the viticultural
area.
TTB notes that the purpose of viticultural areas is to allow
vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to
consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. TTB
also reiterates that the establishment of a viticultural area is
neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in
that area, including a determination of wine quality.
Approval will lead to more expansion petitions. Several
commenters argue that approving this proposal will lead to still more
petitions to expand the Russian River Valley viticultural area, and one
commenter suggests that TTB's acceptance of the proposed expansion of
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area will make it more difficult for
TTB to reject future petitions to expand that viticultural area.
TTB will examine the merits of any such petitions when and if they
are received. TTB's decision regarding whether to approve the proposed
expansion areas will neither forestall any future petitions regarding
the expansion or re-alignment of the boundary lines for the Russian
River Valley or Northern Sonoma viticultural areas, nor affect the
likelihood of TTB's acceptance of any such proposals in the future.
TTB Analysis
The Proposed Expansion of the Russian River Valley Viticultural Area
TTB notes that although the comments submitted in response to
Notice No. 90 overwhelmingly oppose the proposed expansion of the
Russian River Valley viticultural area, the petition included a
``Petition of Support: Russian River Valley AVA Expansion'' with 208
signatures. Thus, significant numbers of persons have expressed support
of and opposition to the expansion of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area. In view of the divided opinions on whether or not
TTB should approve the petitioned-for expansion, in addition to the
petition evidence and the comments received, TTB reviewed the
regulatory record concerning the establishment of the Russian River
Valley viticultural area to ensure that any action taken concerning
this petitioned-for expansion would be consistent with prior regulatory
actions. In particular, TTB reviewed T.D. ATF-159, which initially
established the Russian River Valley viticultural area in
[[Page 70875]]
1983, and T.D TTB-32, which expanded the viticultural area southward in
2005. TTB also notes that the number of comments received in response
to this proposed rulemaking greatly exceeds the number of comments
received on the initial establishment of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area (only one comment, in favor) and on the 2005
expansion (two comments, both in favor).
Name Evidence
With regard to the issue of name evidence for the petitioned-for
expansion, TTB reviewed the regulatory history of the Russian River
Valley viticultural area, and those prior rulemakings do not reflect
name evidence that clearly defines what area is recognized as
constituting the Russian River Valley. Maps of the Russian River
watershed and of the current viticultural area submitted with the
petition indicate that the Russian River Valley viticultural area
occupies only a small portion of the watershed. Moreover, the Russian
River itself flows in a southerly direction far north of the of the
current viticultural area boundary, then into the current viticultural
area through the northern portion of the boundary, and then westward
through the northern portion of the viticultural area before passing
through the western portion of the viticultural area boundary on its
way to the Pacific Ocean.
The name evidence submitted in support of the petitioned-for
expansion is based on the proposed area being within the Russian River
watershed, on several letters from vineyard owners who express their
beliefs that the expansion area is known to be part of the Russian
River Valley, and on a letter from William F. Heintz, a local wine and
viticulture historian. The petitioner also included a printed copy of
map entitled ``Russian River Map'' on which the proposed expansion area
appears.
With regard to those commenters who indicate that the petitioned-
for expansion area is known by other names such as Rohnert Park and
Cotati, or is part of the Petaluma Gap, TTB notes that the Russian
River Valley is a large area that also incorporates other communities
such as Sebastopol and Healdsburg. Recognition of the names of
communities such as Rohnert Park and Cotati does not preclude the area
from being recognized as part of the larger Russian River Valley.
Regarding the assertion that the expansion area is known under the name
of Petaluma Gap rather than as part of the Russian River Valley, TTB
believes that the evidence submitted is not conclusive or persuasive.
Some opposing commenters assert that the Russian River Valley is in
northern Sonoma while the proposed expansion area is in southern
Sonoma, with one commenter citing historical documentation that puts
Petaluma Valley to the south, Santa Rosa Valley to the center, and the
Russian River Valley to the north. Several commenters (for example, Dr.
Crowley) submitted maps and other historical evidence indicating that
the Russian River Valley does not extend south of Santa Rosa. In
response to these comments, TTB notes that the regulatory history does
not lead to the conclusion that what is known as the Russian River
Valley is a term exclusive to ``northern'' Sonoma. Although T.D. ATF-
159 indicates that the Russian River Valley viticultural area as
initially established was north of Santa Rosa, the existing
viticultural area, as expanded southward by T.D. TTB-32 in 2005,
extends significantly south of Santa Rosa. With regard to the 2005
expansion, TTB notes that Dr. Crowley's comment appears to be
supportive of that regulatory action, which also involved an expansion
to the south of Santa Rosa.
With regard to the tourism map, TTB agrees with the opposing
commenters that the map does not identify the proposed expansion area
as being known as part of the Russian River Valley.
However, even without considering the tourism map as supporting
evidence, TTB believes that the petitioner has submitted sufficient
evidence that the expansion area is associated with what is known as
the Russian River Valley. Specifically, the petitioner's assertion is
supported by evidence that the expansion area is almost entirely within
the Russian River watershed, by the letter from Mr. Heinz, and by other
letters in support of the expansion area. Moreover, the prior
regulatory record, specifically T.D. TTB-32, is consistent with the
petitioner's assertion that the Russian River Valley name extends to
the south, where the petitioned-for expansion area lies.
Boundary Evidence
As described in Notice No. 90, the boundary line for the proposed
expansion area is based upon well-supported evidence that the proposed
boundary line primarily follows the ridge that defines the southern
flank of the Russian River watershed, and it then turns north to meet
the current boundary line of the viticultural area. Although some
comments contend that the proposed expansion area is part of the
``Petaluma Gap'' rather than the Russian River Valley, TTB notes that
comment 44, which was submitted by the Petaluma Gap Winegrowers
Alliance, does not oppose the proposed expansion of the Russian River
Valley viticultural area or otherwise address the evidence submitted in
support of the proposed expansion; rather, the comment merely describes
the Petaluma Gap region and states that the Petaluma Gap Winegrowers
Alliance strongly supports the Sonoma Coast viticultural area and its
current boundary line. TTB has not recognized the Petaluma Gap as a
viticultural area, and no evidence has been submitted that sufficiently
identifies and supports any specific distinguishing features of the
Petaluma Gap region. Further, as previously noted, the map of the
Petaluma Gap submitted for the rulemaking record indicates that a
portion of the petitioned-for expansion area, as well as a portion of
the current Russian River Valley viticultural area, is located within
the boundary line for the Petaluma Gap area. In summary, none of the
comments submitted provide sufficient evidence to refute the evidence
submitted by the petitioner that the proposed boundary line is
appropriate for the Russian River Valley viticultural area.
Geographical Features
Climate
The issues raised in the comments concerning temperature data
primarily concern the adequacy of the data to demonstrate that the
petitioned-for expansion is in a coastal cool climate zone. The
petitioner supplied three years of degree day data from the Two Rock
Ranch, which is in the southernmost portion of the proposed expansion
area. In Notice No. 90, TTB determined that these data were sufficient
for purposes of soliciting comments on the proposed expansion. With
regard to the adequacy of the data, TTB notes two points. First, the
Two Rock Ranch is located in the southern portion of the proposed
expansion, and TTB believes that this is highly relevant to the issue
of whether the expansion area has a climate that is similar to that of
the existing Russian River Valley viticultural area to the north.
Second, the petitioner submitted three years of data from the Two Rock
Ranch, and TTB believes that these data are sufficient, noting that the
climate data supporting the 2005 expansion of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area was derived from only a single year and did not
engender any negative public comments regarding the adequacy of these
data. TTB also notes that, although
[[Page 70876]]
some commenters have questioned the adequacy of the data in the present
case, none of those opposing comments included actual data that
contradict the data supplied by the petitioner.
With regard to comments referring to the ``Sonoma County Climate
Zones'' map, TTB notes that several commenters submitted copies of this
map with additional lines indicating the current boundary of the
Russian River Valley viticultural area as well as the petitioned-for
expansion area. First, given that the northern portion of the proposed
expansion area is identified on the maps as being within the coastal
cool climate, this information augments the specific temperature data
concerning the more southern portion of the proposed expansion area
submitted by the petitioner, and the information further supports the
conclusion that the specific data submitted by the petitioner are
adequate. Second, TTB notes that, in the case of the 2005 expansion,
inclusion of that expansion area in the Russian River Valley
viticultural area was not dependent on all of the expansion area being
within the coastal cool climate zone as delineated on the ``Sonoma
County Climate Zones'' map, as shown by the fact that a southeastern
portion of the 2005 expansion area is identified on the map as having a
marine climate.
Finally, from a historical perspective, T.D. ATF-159 describes the
fog intrusions in the Russian River Valley viticultural area as
yielding growing temperatures that are normally (Winkler) Region I or
cooler, thus distinguishing the Russian River Valley from the warmer
neighboring valleys such as Dry Creek Valley, Alexander Valley, and
Sonoma Valley. Accordingly, in the establishment of the Russian River
Valley viticultural area, the focus was on identifying a climate that
was cooler than surrounding areas, so temperatures lower than those
associated with Region I are not inconsistent with the intent of that
rulemaking.
Fog
Although there does not seem to be any dispute that the petitioned-
for expansion area is affected by fog, some opposing commenters suggest
that the fog in the expansion area is marine fog that is much heavier
and colder than the coastal fog in the existing Russian River Valley
viticultural area. Despite the commenters' assertion that the different
fog creates a different climate, no data were submitted to show that
there is a distinction in this regard between the existing Russian
River Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area.
Moreover, neither T.D. ATF-159 nor T.D. TTB-32 noted any distinction
between the Russian River Valley viticultural area and areas outside
the boundary of the viticultural area based on type of fog.
Wind
TTB notes that wind was not a geographical feature relied upon to
establish the existing Russian River Valley viticultural area.
Nevertheless, TTB reviewed the information submitted by opposing
commenters concerning high winds within the petitioned-for expansion
area. No adequate data were submitted that would enable TTB to
determine the extent of the wind variation between the existing
viticultural area and the petitioned-for expansion area, if any, or to
determine whether there is a significant and unique effect on
viticulture caused by wind within the petitioned-for expansion area.
Vegetation and Harvest Dates
TTB recognizes that variations in vegetation and harvest dates from
one area to another can result from several factors, including
differences in temperature and/or fog. However, it would be
inappropriate for TTB to give weight to statements regarding the effect
of temperature and/or fog in this regard in the absence of actual data
that support those statements.
The Proposed Expansion of the Northern Sonoma Viticultural Area
As noted above, most commenters addressed only the petitioned-for
expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, and only a few
commenters specifically addressed the proposed expansion of the
Northern Sonoma viticultural area. The several commenters who
specifically opposed the proposed expansion of the Northern Sonoma
viticultural area contend that the Northern Sonoma viticultural area
should be limited to ``northern'' Sonoma, and that northern Sonoma does
not include the proposed expansion area, which is located only ten
miles from Marin County. Accordingly, those commenters argue that the
proposed expansion is too far south to be part of the Northern Sonoma
viticultural area.
In contrast, in his comment supporting the proposed expansion of
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area, Patrick Shabram (comment 16)
states that the Russian River watershed is a defining feature for
northern Sonoma, so the proposed expansion area should be considered
part of northern Sonoma because it is part of the Russian River
watershed. In addition, some commenters supported the proposed
expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area on the ground that
the entire Russian River Valley viticultural area had been part of the
Northern Sonoma viticultural area prior to the 2005 expansion, so the
Northern Sonoma viticultural area should be expanded to once again
include the entire Russian River Valley viticultural area, including
the 2005 expansion area as well as the current proposed expansion area.
TTB agrees with the supporting commenters that the Northern Sonoma
viticultural area should be expanded as proposed to ensure that the
entire Russian River Valley viticultural area is once again fully
contained within the Northern Sonoma viticultural area, as had been the
case prior to the 2005 expansion of the Russian River Valley
viticultural area.
Request for a Public Hearing
TTB is not granting RRVBIC's request for a public hearing. The
Bureau has determined that a hearing is not necessary because the
public record as described above provides sufficient basis for a
decision.
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the evidence submitted by the petitioner, and
the rulemaking record as discussed above, support the approval of the
proposed expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area. TTB
also concludes that, for the reasons stated above and in Notice No. 90,
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area should be expanded to include the
entire Russian River Valley viticultural area.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary description of the expanded Russian
River Valley and Northern Sonoma viticultural areas in the regulatory
text at the end of this document. In this final rule, TTB altered some
of the language in the written boundary descriptions published as part
of Notice No. 90. TTB made these alterations in the written boundary
description language for clarity and consistency with the existing
written boundary descriptions for the Russian River Valley and Northern
Sonoma viticultural areas. These alterations do not change the location
of the expanded Russian River Valley or Northern Sonoma viticultural
area boundaries as proposed in Notice No. 90.
[[Page 70877]]
Maps
The maps for determining the boundaries of the viticultural areas
are listed below in the regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
The expansions of the Russian River Valley and Northern Sonoma
viticultural areas do not affect currently approved wine labels. The
approval of these expansions will allow additional vintners to use both
``Russian River Valley'' and ``Northern Sonoma'' as appellations of
origin on their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits
any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other
than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be eligible to use
as an appellation of origin a viticultural area name or other
viticulturally significant term specified in part 9 of the TTB
regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from
grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term,
and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR
4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing
a viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term that
was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See
27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a
viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and
consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no
regulatory assessment.
Drafting Information
This rule was drafted by the Regulations and Rulings Division.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27,
chapter 1, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Section 9.66 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (b)(9), by removing the word ``, and'' at the end of
paragraph (b)(10) and adding, in its place, a semicolon, by removing
the period at the end of paragraph (b)(11) and adding, in its place, a
semicolon followed by the word ``and'', and by adding a new paragraph
(b)(12); and
0
b. In paragraph (c), by revising paragraphs (c)(15) through (c)(19), by
redesignating paragraphs (c)(20) through (c)(34) as paragraphs (c)(26)
through (c)(40), and by adding new paragraphs (c)(20) through (c)(25).
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 9.66 Russian River Valley.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(12) Cotati Quadrangle, California--Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000,
1954, photorevised 1980.
(c) * * *
(15) Proceed southeast 0.5 mile, crossing over the end of an
unnamed, unimproved dirt road to an unnamed 524-foot elevation peak,
T6N, R8W, on the Two Rock map.
(16) Proceed southeast 0.75 mile in a straight line to the
intersection of an unnamed unimproved dirt road (leading to four barn-
like structures) and an unnamed medium-duty road (known locally as
Roblar Road), T6N, R8W, on the Two Rock map.
(17) Proceed south 0.5 mile to an unnamed 678-foot elevation peak
just slightly north of the intersection of T5N and T6N, R8W, on the Two
Rock map.
(18) Proceed east-southeast 0.8 mile to an unnamed peak with a 599-
foot elevation, T5N, R8W, on the Two Rock map.
(19) Proceed east-southeast 0.7 mile to an unnamed peak with a 604-
foot elevation, T5N, R8W, on the Two Rock map.
(20) Proceed east-southeast 0.9 mile to the intersection of a
short, unnamed light-duty road leading past a group of barn-like
structures and a medium duty road known locally as Meacham Road, and
cross on to the Cotati map T5N, R8W.
(21) Proceed north-northeast 0.75 mile to the intersection of
Meacham and Stony Point Roads, T5N, R8W, on the Cotati map.
(22) Proceed southeast 1.1 miles along Stony Point Road to the
point where the 200-foot elevation contour line intersects Stony Point
Road, T5N, R8W, on the Cotati map.
(23) Proceed north-northeast 0.5 mile to the point where an unnamed
intermittent stream intersects U.S. 101, T5N, R8W, on the Cotati map.
(24) Proceed north 4.25 miles along U.S. 101 to the point where
Santa Rosa Avenue exits U.S. 101 (approximately 0.5 mile north of the
Wilfred Avenue overpass) T6N, R8W, on the Cotati map.
(25) Proceed north 1.1 miles along Santa Rosa Avenue to its
intersection with Todd Road, crossing on to the Santa Rosa map, T6N,
R8W, on the Santa Rosa map.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 9.70 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraph (b); and
0
b. In paragraph (c), by revising the introductory text and paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(5), by redesignating paragraphs (c)(6) through
(c)(26) as paragraphs (c)(23) through (c)(43), and by adding new
paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(22).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 9.70 Northern Sonoma.
* * * * *
(b) Approved Maps. The nine United States Geological Survey maps
used to determine the boundary of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area
are titled:
(1) Sonoma County, California, scale 1:100 000, 1970;
(2) Asti Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24 000, 1959, photorevised
1978;
(3) Jimtown Quadrangle, California--Sonoma County; scale 1:24 000,
1955, photorevised 1975;
(4) Camp Meeker Quadrangle, California--Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000,
1954, photorevised 1971;
(5) Valley Ford Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24 000, 1954,
photorevised 1971;
(6) Two Rock Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24 000, 1954,
photorevised 1971;
(7) Cotati Quadrangle, California--Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000,
1954, photorevised 1980;
(8) Santa Rosa Quadrangle, California--Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000,
1954, photorevised 1980; and
(9) Mark West Springs Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24 000, 1993.
(c) Boundary. The Northern Sonoma viticultural area is located in
Sonoma County, California. The boundary description includes (in
parentheses) the local names of roads that are not identified by name
on the map.
[[Page 70878]]
(1) The beginning point is on the Sonoma County, map in the town of
Monte Rio at the intersection of the Russian River and a secondary
highway (Bohemian Highway);
(2) The boundary follows this secondary highway (Bohemian Highway),
southeasterly parallel to Dutch Bill Creek, through the towns of Camp
Meeker, Occidental, and Freestone, and then northeasterly to its
intersection with an unnamed secondary highway designated as State
Highway 12 (Bodega Road) at BM 214, as shown on the Valley Ford map.
(3) The boundary follows Bodega Road northeasterly 0.9 miles on the
Valley Ford map; then onto the Camp Meeker map to its intersection, at
BM 486, with Jonive Road to the north and an unnamed light duty road to
the south (Barnett Valley Road), Township 6 North, Range 9 West, on the
Camp Meeker map.
(4) The boundary follows Barnett Valley Road south 2.2 miles, then
east crossing over the Valley Ford map and onto the Two Rock map, to
Barnett Valley Road's intersection with Burnside Road, section 17,
Township 6 North, Range 9 West.
(5) The boundary follows Burnside Road southeast 3.3 miles to
Burnside Road's intersection with an unnamed medium duty road at BM
375, Township 6 North, Range 9 West.
(6) The boundary follows a straight line southeast 0.6 mile to an
unnamed 610-foot elevation peak, 1.5 miles southwest of Canfield
School, Township 6 North, Range 9 West.
(7) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.75 mile
to an unnamed 641-foot elevation peak 1.4 miles south-southwest of
Canfield School, Township 6 North, Range 9 West.
(8) The boundary follows a straight line northeast 0.85 mile to its
intersection with an unnamed intermittent stream and Canfield Road;
then continues on the straight line northeast 0.3 mile to the line's
intersection with the common Ranges 8 and 9 line, just west of an
unnamed unimproved dirt road, Township 6 North.
(9) The boundary follows a straight line southeast 0.5 mile,
crossing over the end of an unnamed, unimproved dirt road to an unnamed
524-foot elevation peak, Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
(10) The boundary follows a straight line southeast 0.75 mile to
the intersection of an unnamed unimproved dirt road (leading to four
barn-like structures) and an unnamed medium-duty road (Roblar Road),
Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
(11) The boundary follows a straight line south 0.5 mile to an
unnamed 678-foot elevation peak, Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
(12) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.8 mile
to an unnamed peak with a 599-foot elevation, Township 5 North, Range 8
West.
(13) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.7 mile
to an unnamed peak with a 604-foot elevation, Township 5 North, Range 8
West.
(14) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.9 mile,
onto the Cotati map, to the intersection of a short, unnamed light-duty
road leading past a group of barn-like structures and Meacham Road,
Township 5 North, Range 8 West.
(15) The boundary follows Meacham Road north-northeast 0.75 mile to
Meacham Road's intersection with Stony Point Road, Township 5 North,
Range 8 West.
(16) The boundary follows Stony Point Road southeast 1.1 miles to
the point where the 200-foot elevation contour line intersects Stony
Point Road, Township 5 North, Range 8 West.
(17) The boundary follows a straight line north-northeast 0.5 mile
to the point where an unnamed intermittent stream intersects U.S. 101,
Township 5 North, Range 8 West.
(18) The boundary follows U.S. Route 101 north 4.25 miles to the
point where Santa Rosa Avenue exits U.S. Route 101 to the east
(approximately 0.5 mile north of the Wilfred Avenue overpass) Township
6 North, Range 8 West.
(19) The boundary follows Santa Rosa Avenue north 1.1 miles to its
intersection with Todd Road, crossing on to the Santa Rosa map,
Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
(20) The boundary follows Santa Rosa Avenue generally north 5.8
miles, eventually becoming Mendocino Avenue, to Santa Rosa Avenue's
intersection with an unnamed secondary road (Bicentennial Way), 0.3
mile north-northwest of BM 161 on Mendocino Avenue, section 11,
Township 7 North, Range 8 West.
(21) The boundary follows a straight line north 2.5 miles crossing
over the 906-foot elevation peak in section 35, T8N, R8W, crossing onto
the Mark West Springs map, to the line's intersection with Mark West
Springs Road and the meandering 280-foot elevation line in section 26,
Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
(22) The boundary follows the unnamed secondary highway, Mark West
Springs Road, on the Sonoma County map, generally north and east,
eventually turning into Porter Road and then to Petrified Forest Road,
passing BM 545, the town of Mark West Springs, BM 495, and the
Petrified Forest area, to Petrified Forest Road's intersection with the
Sonoma County-Napa County line.
* * * * *
Signed: April 14, 2011.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: July 21, 2011.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2011-29519 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P