Proposed Establishment of the Long Valley-Lake County Viticultural Area and Modification of the High Valley and North Coast Viticultural Areas
| Citation | 87 FR 13238 |
| Record Number | 2022-04999 |
| Published date | 09 March 2022 |
| Court | Alcohol And Tobacco Tax And Trade Bureau |
Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13238-13247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04999]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2022-0003; Notice No. 209]
RIN 1513-AC79
Proposed Establishment of the Long Valley-Lake County
Viticultural Area and Modification of the High Valley and North Coast
Viticultural Areas
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
establish the approximately 7,605-acre ``Long Valley-Lake County''
viticultural
[[Page 13239]]
area in Lake County, California. Additionally, TTB proposes to expand
the boundary of the established 14,000-acre High Valley viticultural
area by approximately 1,542 acres in order to create a contiguous
border with the proposed Long Valley-Lake County viticultural area.
Only the western third of the proposed Long Valley-Lake County
viticultural area, and approximately three quarters of the High Valley
viticultural area, would lie within the established, multi-county North
Coast viticultural area. To avoid this partial overlap with the High
Valley and proposed Long Valley-Lake County viticultural areas, TTB is
proposing to expand the boundary of the North Coast viticultural area
by approximately 23,690 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. TTB invites
comments on these proposals.
DATES: TTB must receive your comments on or before May 9, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this
proposal and view copies of this document, its supporting materials,
and any comments TTB receives on the proposal within Docket No. TTB-
2022-0003, as posted on Regulations.gov https://www.regulations.gov),
the Federal e-rulemaking portal. Please see the ``Public
Participation'' section of this document below for full details on how
to comment on this proposal via Regulations.gov or U.S. mail, and for
full details on how to obtain copies of this document, its supporting
materials, and any comments related to this proposal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
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 provides 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 FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated the functions
and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions to
the TTB Administrator through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated
December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24,
2003).
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate 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 (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
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 a 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 AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA 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 (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2))
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and allows any interested
party to petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA.
Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards
for petitions to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an
AVA must include the following:
Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed AVA;
A narrative description of the features of the proposed
AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
If the petition proposes the establishment of a new AVA entirely
within, or overlapping, an existing AVA, the evidence submitted must
include information that identifies the attributes that are consistent
with the existing AVA and explain how the proposed AVA is sufficiently
distinct from the existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate
recognition. If a petition seeks to expand the boundaries of an
existing AVA, the petition must show how the name of the existing AVA
also applies to the expansion area, and must demonstrate that the area
covered by the expansion has the same distinguishing features as those
of the existing AVA, and different features from those of the area
outside the proposed, new boundary.
Petition To Establish the Long Valley-Lake County AVA and To Modify the
Boundaries of the High Valley and North Coast AVAs
TTB received a petition from Terry Dereniuk, owner of Terry
Dereniuk Consulting, and Don Van Pelt and Clay Shannon, of Cache Creek
Vineyards and the Shannon Family of Wines, proposing to establish the
``Long Valley-Lake County'' AVA and to modify the boundaries of the
existing High Valley (27 CFR 9.189) and North Coast (27 CFR 9.30) AVAs.
The petition was submitted on behalf of Long Valley wine grape growers.
The proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA is located in Lake County,
California, and is partially within the existing North Coast AVA. The
proposed AVA is also to the north and east of the established High
Valley AVA. The approximately 7,605-acre proposed AVA currently
contains 3 wineries and 5 commercial vineyards, which cover a total of
approximately 149 acres.
The western third of the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA, and
approximately three quarters of the High Valley AVA, would lie within
the existing North Coast AVA. To address the partial overlap and
account for
[[Page 13240]]
viticultural similarities, the petition also proposes to expand the
boundary of the North Coast AVA so that the entire High Valley and
proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVAs would be included within the
North Coast AVA. The proposed expansion would increase the size of the
North Coast AVA by 23,690 acres. Currently, there are five vineyards
within the proposed North Coast AVA expansion area. The petition
included three letters of support for the proposed expansion.
Furthermore, the petition proposes to expand the boundary of the
established High Valley AVA. The proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA
lies to the north and east of the established AVA and shares a small
part of its boundary. However, there is a small gap between the
northern boundary of the High Valley AVA and the southern boundary of
the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA. The petition proposes to
expand the High Valley AVA northward, eliminating the gap and making
the northern boundary of the High Valley AVA contiguous with the
southern boundary of the proposed AVA. The proposed boundary
modification would increase the size of the 14,000-acre High Valley AVA
by approximately 1,542 acres. The petition included a letter from a
member of the committee that originally proposed the establishment of
the High Valley AVA. The letter supports the proposed High Valley AVA
expansion as a way to avoid ``the creation of an area that will be part
of neither'' the High Valley AVA nor the proposed Long Valley-Lake
County AVA. The expansion would affect one grower, dividing the
grower's acreage between the High Valley AVA and the proposed Long
Valley-Lake County AVA. The petition included a letter from the grower,
supporting the expansion and acknowledging its effect. Currently, there
are no other vineyards within the proposed expansion area.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Long Valley-Lake County
AVA include its topography and elevation, geology, and climate. Unless
otherwise noted, all information and data contained in the following
sections are from the petition to establish the proposed AVA and its
supporting exhibits.
Proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA
Name Evidence
According to the petition, settlers began arriving in the region of
the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA in the mid-1800s. An entry in
the book History of Napa and Lake Counties shows that by the time the
book was published in 1881, the region was already known as ``Long
Valley.'' \1\ The entry is a listing of the distances from Lakeport,
California, to various other locations in Lake County, including a
notation that ``Long Valley'' is 30 miles from Lakeport. Another
description of Lake County published by the Lake County Board of
Supervisors in 1888 notes that, ``Long Valley lies on the east side of
Clear Lake, and is separated from it by a high range of mountains.''
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ History of Napa and Lake Counties, California (Slocum,
Bowen, & Co., Publishers 1881) page 89. See also Figure 1 of the
petition in Docket TTB-2022-0003 at https://www.regulations.gov.
\2\ James Hilly, Upper Lake, A Description of Lake County
California, published by authority of the Board of Supervisors,
1888, page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition also included more recent evidence that the region of
the proposed AVA is referred to as ``Long Valley.'' For example, a 1955
report on the ground water of Lake County includes a 4-page entry for
``Long Valley'' and notes that the valley is ``about 5 miles north of
Clearlake Oaks.'' \3\ Long Valley is also identified on the 1996 USGS
Clearlake Oaks quadrangle map used to form part of the proposed
boundary. Two roads running through the proposed AVA are named New Long
Valley Road and Old Long Valley Road, and a creek that runs along the
valley floor is called Long Valley Creek. The roads and creek are shown
on a 2015 AAA Road map included in the petition as Appendix Exhibit 6.
In Ground Water Bulletin 118, the California Department of Water
Resources designates the groundwater basin beneath the region of the
proposed AVA as ``Long Valley Groundwater Basin.'' \4\ The Shoreline
Communities Area Plan prepared by the Lake County Development
Department in 2009 notes, ``The primary areas within the planning area
designated as agriculture include High Valley, Long Valley, and
properties with active Williamson Act (Agricultural Preserve)
contracts.'' \5\ Finally, a 2012 article about a wildfire in the Lake
County states that the fire ``had people in the nearby Spring Valley
and Long Valley communities under evacuation orders.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Upson, J.E., and Fred Kinkel. Ground Water of the Lower
Lake-Middletown Area Lake County, California. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1297. Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1955.
\4\ California Department of Water Resources. California's
Ground Water Bulletin 118. California Department of Water Resources:
1975. Updated 2004.
\5\ The Shoreline Communities Area Plan prepared by Lake County
Community Development Department, page 1-3.
\6\ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Wye-Fire-in-Lake-County-Burns-Out-of-Control-165934666.html. See also Appendix
Exhibit 8 of the petition in Docket TTB-2022-0003 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Evidence
The proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA includes Long Valley, a
long, narrow valley oriented along a northwest-southeast axis. The
proposed AVA contains the valley floor as well as the surrounding
hillsides and bench lands that rise from 200 to 500 feet above the
valley floor. The proposed northern boundary primarily follows the
1,400-foot elevation contour. The proposed AVA is bounded on the north
by the Mendocino National Forest, which was excluded from the proposed
AVA because it is not available for commercial viticulture. The
proposed eastern boundary also primarily follows the 1,400-elevation
contour and separates the proposed AVA from steep, mountainous terrain.
The proposed AVA is bounded on the southwest by State Highway 20, which
separates the proposed AVA from higher elevations and hillier terrain
that lacks open valley floor, and on the southeast by the 1,200-foot
elevation contour. The proposed western boundary follows the 1,600-foot
elevation contour, which also separates the proposed AVA from the
established High Valley AVA.
Distinguishing Features
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the
proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA include its topography and
elevation, geology, and climate.
Topography and Elevation
According to the petition, elevations and slope angles within the
proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA vary due to its topography of
rolling foothills, benches, and valley floor. The median elevation of
the valley floor is approximately 1,322 feet above sea level, while the
lowest valley floor elevations are at the southern end of the proposed
AVA and reach approximately 1,063 feet above sea level. The foothills
included in the proposed AVA rise an additional 200 to 500 feet above
the valley floor. The valley floor and benches are generally flat with
slopes from 0 to 10 percent. The hillsides are steeper, with slope
angles in some areas reaching more than 30 percent.
The petition states that the topography of the proposed AVA, with
its long, narrow valley floor between surrounding mountains, provides a
beneficial environment for viticulture. Air drainage provides
protection from damaging late spring frosts in vineyards along the
benches, which are higher
[[Page 13241]]
than the valley floor. The petition notes that Noggle Vineyard and
Winery, which is located on a bench on the west side of the proposed
AVA, does not use mechanical frost protection methods and instead
relies on the cold air drainage to protect its vines. Vineyards on the
lower valley floor within the proposed AVA are at a higher risk for
damaging frosts due to their flat slope angles and lower elevations. As
a result, valley floor vineyards like the Shannon Ridge vineyards use
frost protection methods such as overhead sprinklers. However, during
the growing season, vineyards on the valley floor benefit from winds
that blow through the valley and cool the vines from the heat of the
day.
To the west and southwest of the proposed AVA, the established High
Valley AVA has higher elevations than the proposed Long Valley-Lake
County AVA. Elevations in the valley floor of the High Valley AVA are
between 1,700 and 1,800 feet, and elevations on the surrounding ridges
are as high as 3,000 feet. To the east and south of the proposed AVA
are steep hillsides with slope angles exceeding 30 percent and
elevations that rise to 2,000 feet at the highest peaks.
Geology
According to the petition, geology is a significant distinguishing
feature of the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA. The proposed AVA
sits on what is known as the Cache Formation, which is estimated to be
1.6 to 2.8 million years old and from the Pliocene and early
Pleistocene period. The formation is largely made up of lake deposits
and consists of tuffaceous and diatomaceous sands and silts, limestone,
gravel, and intercalated volcanic rocks. The Cache Formation is the
foundation for the soils of the proposed AVA and the nutrients found
therein, meaning that the roots of vines grown in the Cache Formation
will come into contact with a different set of minerals and nutrients
than vines grown elsewhere.
To the north and west of the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA,
the primary geologic formation is the Franciscan Formation. This
formation is comprised of Cretaceous and Jurassic sandstone with
similar amounts of shale, chert, limestone, and conglomerate rocks from
the Mesozoic period. To the east and south of the proposed AVA is the
Great Valley Sequence. Holocene volcanic flow rocks and minor
pyroclastic deposits, as well as the Franciscan Formation and
ultramafic rocks, also occur to the south and east of the proposed AVA.
Climate
The petition provided information about the climate of the proposed
Long Valley-Lake County AVA, including annual rainfall amounts and
growing degree day (GDD) accumulations.\7\ First, the petition notes
that based on data from a California groundwater bulletin, annual
rainfall amounts within the proposed AVA generally range between 27 and
33 inches, increasing to the west.\8\ The bulletin states that to the
southeast of the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA, within the Clear
Lake Cache Formation Groundwater Basin, annual precipitation amounts
range from 25 to 29 inches. South of the proposed AVA, within the Burns
Valley Basin, annual precipitation is approximately 27 inches. West and
southwest of the proposed AVA, in the High Valley Groundwater Basin,
annual precipitation ranges from 27 to 35 inches, decreasing to the
east; however, the petition notes that annual precipitation amounts
within the High Valley AVA, which is located within the High Valley
Groundwater Basin, can reach up to 54 inches. To the northwest of the
proposed AVA is the Middle Creek Groundwater Basin, and the California
groundwater bulletin indicates that annual precipitation amounts in
that region range from 43 to 45 inches, increasing to the north.
Rainfall data was not provided for the regions to the north and east of
the proposed AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64. In the Winkler
climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the
growing season, measured in annual GDDs, defines climatic regions.
One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean
temperature is above 50 degrees F, the minimum temperature required
for grapevine growth.
\8\ California Groundwater Bulletin 118, Sacramento Valley
Groundwater Basin, Long Valley Groundwater Basin 5-31, February 27,
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition also includes measurements for rainfall amounts from
three specific vineyard locations within the proposed AVA. Noggle
Vineyards is located on a bench west of the southern end of the Long
Valley floor. Garner Ranch is located in the western portion of the
valley floor, which typically receives higher rainfall amounts than the
eastern portion of the valley. Garner Ranch is also located at
elevations lower than Noggle Vineyards and higher than Spring Valley.
The Spring Valley location is located on the southeastern side of the
valley floor, at elevations lower than both of the other two locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The rainfall amounts were collected from July of the first
year to June of the following year.
Table 1--Annual Precipitation Amounts at Noggle Vineyards \9\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Inches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-2017............................................... 41.4
2015-2016............................................... 29.85
2014-2015............................................... 28
2013-2014............................................... 16.8
2012-2013............................................... 20.5
2011-2012............................................... 18.81
2010-2011............................................... 38.45
2009-2010............................................... 30.9
2008-2009............................................... 20.1
2007-2008............................................... 22.5
2006-2007............................................... 16.2
2005-2006............................................... 50.4
2004-2005............................................... 38.75
2003-2004............................................... 30.08
2002-2003............................................... 14.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median Annual Rainfall.................................. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Annual Precipitation Amounts at Garner Ranch \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Inches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2016............................................... 51.98
2014-2015............................................... 44.06
2013-2014............................................... 8.83
2012-2013............................................... 40.32
2011-2012............................................... 12.24
2010-2011............................................... 43.82
2009-2010............................................... 35.19
2008-2009............................................... 45.57
2007-2008............................................... 30.44
2006-2007............................................... 34.65
2005-2006............................................... 36.45
2004-2005............................................... 47.76
2003-2004............................................... 48.95
2002-2003............................................... 44.01
2001-2002............................................... 45.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median Annual Rainfall.................................. 43.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Annual Precipitation Amounts in Spring Valley \11\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Inches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017.................................................... 43.15
2016.................................................... 29.6
2015.................................................... 26
2014.................................................... 15.5
2013.................................................... 22.5
2012.................................................... 20.7
2011.................................................... 40
2010.................................................... 30
2009.................................................... 22
2008.................................................... 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median Annual Rainfall.................................. 24.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the petition, annual rainfall plays a critical role in
ensuring recharge of the underlying groundwater and providing water for
irrigation.
[[Page 13242]]
Based on a recent study of wine grape production in Lake County,\12\
wine grapes require an average of 8 to 11 acre inches per year for
irrigation purposes. The water is also used for frost protection in the
lower, flatter portions of the proposed AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The rainfall amounts were collected from July of the first
year to June of the following year.
\11\ The rainfall amounts were collected from January to
December.
\12\ McGourty, Glenn, et al. Vineyard Water Use in Lake County,
California. December 1, 2014. Accessed from https://www.lakecountywinegrape.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Lake-County-Vineyard-Water-Use-UC-Cooperative-Extension-December-1-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition also included information on annual growing degree day
(GDD) accumulations within the proposed AVA. The petition included GDD
information from three locations within the proposed AVA. However,
because one of the locations only had data from two years and the
second only had data from a single year, TTB is not including those
locations in the following table.
Table 4--GDD Accumulations from Noggle Vineyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year GDDs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.................................................... 3,377
2015.................................................... 3,596
2014.................................................... 3,668
2013.................................................... 3,355
2012.................................................... 3,305
2011.................................................... 2,955
2010.................................................... 2,882
2009.................................................... 3,416
2008.................................................... 3,432
2007.................................................... 3,126
2006.................................................... 3,355
2005.................................................... 3,112
2004.................................................... 3,430
2003.................................................... 4,277
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average................................................. 3,378
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the data in the table, the proposed Long Valley-Lake
County AVA is classified as Region III on the Winkler scale.\13\
According to the petition, a location's classification on the Winkler
scale can predict the site's suitability for growing specific grape
varieties.\14\ The petition states that Region III is favorable for
high production of standard to good quality table wines.\15\ The
proposed AVA is known for producing red wine grapes such as Cabernet
Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Petite Sirah, and Syrah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Winkler scale GDD regions are as follows: Region Ia,
1,500-2,000; Region Ib, 2,000-2,500; Region II, 2,500-3,000; Region
III, 3,000-3,500; Region IV, 3,500-4,000: Region V, 4,000-4,900.
\14\ Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64.
\15\ Gregory V. Jones, Ph.D., Climate Characteristics for
Winegrape Production in Lake County California, report for Lake
County Winegrape Commission, www.lakecountywinegrape.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, the established High Valley AVA, which is located to
the immediate south and west of the proposed AVA, has annual GDD
accumulations that range from a low of 3,139 to a high of 3,775, with
an average of 3,447. Farther south, in the established Red Hills Lake
County AVA (27 CFR 9.169), annual GDD accumulations range from 3,155 to
3,753, with a median of 3,595. These GDD accumulations suggest a warmer
climate to the south and west of the proposed AVA and place the High
Valley AVA in the higher end of Region III and the Red Hills Lake
County AVA in the lower end of Region IV. However, farther to the west
and southwest of the proposed AVA, in the established Benmore Valley
(27 CFR 9.138), Big Valley District-Lake County (27 CFR 9.232), and
Kelsey Bench-Lake County (27 CFR 9.233) AVAs, median GDD accumulations
are lower, at 3,248, 3,245, and 3,250, respectively. To the southeast
of the proposed AVA, the Capay Valley (27 CFR 9.176) and Guenoc Valley
(27 CFR 9.26) AVAs have annual GDD accumulations ranging from 2,963-
4,318 and 3,420-3,796, respectively, which suggests that this region
has a warmer climate than the proposed AVA. The petition did not
provide annual GDD accumulation averages for regions to the due north
or due east of the proposed AVA.
Summary of Distinguishing Features
The following table summarizes the characteristics of the proposed
Long Valley-Lake County AVA and compares them to the features of the
surrounding regions.
Table 5--Summary of Distinguishing Features
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Features
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed AVA...................... Valley floor, rolling hills, and
benches; median elevation of 1,322
feet; valley floor and bench slope
angles from 0 to 10 percent with
steeper hillsides; primary geologic
feature is Cache Formation
comprised of tuffaceous and
diatomaceous sands and silts,
limestone, gravel, and intercalated
volcanic rock; annual rainfall
amounts from 27 to 33 inches within
the Long Valley Groundwater Basin;
average GDD accumulations of 3,378;
Winkler scale Region III.
North............................. Primary geologic feature is
Franciscan Formation of sandstone,
shale, chert, limestone, and
conglomerate rocks; annual rainfall
amounts in the Middle Creek
Groundwater Basin (northwest of
proposed AVA) range from 43 to 45
inches.
East.............................. Steep hillsides with slope angles
exceeding 30 percent; primary
geologic feature is Great Valley
Sequence with Holocene volcanic
flow rocks and minor pyroclastic
deposits; annual rainfall amounts
within Clear Lake Cache Formation
Groundwater Basin (southeast of
proposed AVA) range from 25 to 29
inches.
South............................. Primary geologic feature is Great
Valley Sequence with Holocene
volcanic flow rocks and minor
pyroclastic deposits; annual
rainfall amount in the Burns Valley
Basin is 27 inches; higher GDD
accumulations.
West.............................. Higher elevations up to 3,000 feet;
annual rainfall amounts in High
Valley Groundwater Basin ranges
from 27 to 35 inches; higher GDD
accumulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of the Proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA to the Existing
North Coast AVA
The North Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-145, which was
published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 42973).
T.D. ATF-145 describes the topography of the North Coast AVA as ``flat
valleys and tillable hillsides surrounded by mountains.'' The North
Coast AVA is generally characterized as having climatic Regions I
through III on the Winkler scale. The average annual rainfall amount in
the North Coast AVA is 36.2 inches.
The proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA is partially located
within the North Coast AVA and shares some of the characteristics of
the larger established AVA. For example, similar
[[Page 13243]]
to other locations in the North Coast AVA, Long Valley is a northwest-
southeast oriented valley surrounded by tillable foothills or hillsides
suitable for planting wine grapes and steeper mountains. The proposed
AVA is also classified as Region III on the Winkler scale, which is
within the range of classifications found in the North Coast AVA. The
western portion of the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA, which is
entirely located within the North Coast AVA, has average annual
precipitation amounts that are similar to those of the North Coast AVA.
However, due to lower average annual rainfall amounts in its eastern
portion, the smaller proposed Long Valley-Lake County as a whole has
lower average rainfall amounts than the large, multi-county North Coast
AVA.
Proposed Modification of the North Coast AVA
As previously noted, the petition to establish the proposed Long
Valley-Lake County AVA also requested an expansion of the established
North Coast AVA. The proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA is located
along the eastern boundary of the North Coast AVA. The western third of
the proposed AVA would, if established, be located within the current
boundary of the North Coast AVA. However, unless the boundary of the
North Coast AVA is modified, the remaining two-thirds of the proposed
AVA would be outside the North Coast AVA. Additionally, the established
High Valley AVA currently partially overlaps the North Coast AVA. If
approved, the proposed North Coast AVA expansion would place both the
High Valley AVA and the adjacent proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA
entirely within the North Coast AVA.
Currently, the North Coast AVA boundary in the vicinity of the
proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA and the proposed expansion area
follows a straight line drawn from the southern boundary of the
Mendocino National Forest to the summit of Round Mountain, which is
within the established High Valley AVA. The boundary then follows a
straight line from Round Mountain to the summit of Bally Peak and then
to the summit of Brushy Sky High Mountain. The proposed boundary
modification would move the North Coast AVA boundary east. The proposed
boundary modification would begin at the point where the current
boundary intersects the summit of Evans Peak. From there, the proposed
boundary would proceed southeasterly in a straight line to the summit
of Chalk Mountain, and then continue in a straight line southeasterly
to the summit of Red Rocks. Finally, the boundary would proceed
southeasterly to the summit of Brushy Sky High Mountain, where it would
rejoin the current boundary. The proposed boundary modification would
add 23,690 acres to the North Coast AVA.
The expansion petition notes that at the time the North Coast AVA
was established, the High Valley AVA did not exist and there was
limited viticultural activity in the region. Now, several vineyards and
wineries exist within the proposed expansion area. The petition
included letters of support for the proposed North Coast AVA expansion
from a Lake County attorney and wine grape grower, the University of
California Cooperative Extension Winegrape and Plant Science Advisor,
and the president of the Lake County Winegrape Commission.
The petition included evidence that, although only a portion of
Lake County was originally included in the North Coast AVA, the name
``North Coast'' applies to the region of the county that is within the
proposed expansion area, as well. For example, the Wine Institute's web
page states, ``The western portion of Lake County comprises the North
Coast AVA. It encompasses the Clear Lake AVA, * * * the Red Hills Lake
County AVA, and High Valley AVA.'' \16\ The petition notes that the
Wine Institute's web page does not distinguish between the western
portion of the High Valley AVA and the eastern portion, which is not
within the North Coast AVA, suggesting that the proposed expansion area
is associated with the North Coast AVA even though it is not
technically part of it. The petition also states that an online
directory of Californian camping locations mentions that the ``southern
portion of the North Coast is largely urbanized and it includes Sonoma,
Napa and Lake Counties.'' \17\ As the petition notes, the website
includes all of Lake County within the region known as the ``North
Coast'' and does not distinguish between the western and eastern
portions of the county.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.wineinstitute.org/resources/consumerfeaturedstories/article338.
\17\ https://www.camp-california.com/rv-camping-destination/north-coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expansion petition claims that the proposed North Coast AVA
expansion area has features that are similar to those described as
distinguishing features of the North Coast AVA in T.D. ATF-145, namely
cooling winds, growing degree days, and rainfall. First, the expansion
petition describes the wind patterns within the proposed expansion area
and the North Coast AVA. T.D. ATF-145 notes, ``While confirming that
Lake County does not receive coastal fog, evidence was presented that
coastal air flows through gaps in the mountains and across Clear Lake,
cooling the area surrounding the Lake * * *.'' The expansion petition
notes that two of these gaps are northwest of the High Valley AVA, the
proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA, and the proposed expansion area
and likely influence air flow from the west. The gaps are illustrated
in two maps included in the expansion petition as Figures 31 and 32.
The petition also included a wind map of the northern coastal
regions of California (Figure 33) which shows winds moving eastward
into the proposed expansion area before turning to the north. Although
the wind map only shows the wind pattern for a single day in 2018, it
does suggest that marine winds can reach the proposed North Coast AVA
expansion area. The petition also included an article about a 2018
wildfire in the Spring Valley region of the proposed expansion area
that provides anecdotal evidence of marine air reaching the proposed
expansion area. The article states, ``While the Sunday winds wreaked
havoc on firefighting efforts, they also helped pull in a heavy marine
layer overnight that brought a welcomed spike in humidity. Much of
Sonoma County was bathed in fog Monday morning and that same coastal
influence helped keep moisture levels up--and temperatures down--at the
fire.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Randi Rossman, Martin Espinoza and Kevin McCallum. ``Pawnee
fire in Lake County jumps to 11,500 acres.'' The Santa Rosa Press
Democrat, June 25, 2018. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8468876-181/pawnee-fire-in-lake-county. See also Appendix Exhibit 18 to the
petition in Docket TTB-2022-0003 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, the expansion petition compared the GDDs of the proposed
North Coast AVA expansion area to those of the established North Coast
AVA. T.D. ATF-145 concludes that the North Coast AVA is ``generally
characterized as having climatic Regions I through III on the Winkler
scale,'' and cites assertions from grape growers in Lake County that
the portions of Lake County currently within the North Coast AVA have
Region II and Region III climates. As noted previously, GDD
accumulations for Noggle Vineyard, which is within the proposed Long
Valley-Lake County AVA and the proposed North Coast AVA expansion area,
place it in Region III. The expansion petition also included a map
(Figure 36) showing average GDD accumulations for Lake County based on
[[Page 13244]]
temperature data from 1971 to 2000. The map shows that both the
proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA and the portion of the High Valley
AVA that is within the proposed North Coast AVA expansion area have GDD
accumulations similar to the portion of the High Valley AVA that is
currently within the North Coast AVA. Additionally, the proposed
expansion area's GDD accumulations are similar to those of the
established Red Hills Lake County AVA, which is entirely within the
North Coast AVA.
Finally, the proposed North Coast AVA expansion petition compares
annual rainfall amounts within the proposed expansion area to those in
the established North Coast AVA. T.D. ATF-145 concluded that rainfall
within the North Coast AVA ``varies widely from 24.8 inches at Napa
State Hospital to 62.2 inches in Middletown.'' T.D. ATF-145 cited
evidence that the western portion of Lake County currently within the
North Coast AVA receives an average of 38.9 inches of rainfall annually
at 5 weather stations, ranging from 28.9 inches at one station to 62.2
inches at another, and that Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, which are
also within the North Coast AVA, receive an average of 39.7 and 34.7
inches of rain, respectively.
As previously discussed, the North Coast AVA expansion petition
provided rainfall data from two locations within the southern half of
the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA that are also within the
proposed North Coast AVA expansion area. The average annual rainfall
amounts at Noggle Vineyards and Spring Valley were 27.8 and 27.1
inches, respectively, which is lower than the average annual rainfall
amounts for Mendocino County, Sonoma County and western Lake County, as
described in T.D. ATF-145. However, the expansion petition also
provided more recent rainfall averages from seven Lake County weather
stations that are currently within the North Coast AVA (Figure 43).\19\
The data was gathered from 2012 to 2017. Rainfall averages from those
locations ranged from a low of 23.68 at Kelseyville to 44.6 inches at
Middletown. The petition states that, based in part on these rainfall
amounts, the proposed expansion area's annual rainfall amounts are
comparable to other Lake County locations that are currently within the
North Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ All figures and exhibits to the petition can be viewed in
Docket TTB-2022-0003 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Modification of the High Valley AVA
As previously noted, the petition to establish the proposed Long
Valley-Lake County AVA also requested an expansion of the established
High Valley AVA. The High Valley AVA was established by T.D. TTB-30 on
July 1, 2005 (70 FR 37998). The High Valley AVA is located to the west
and southwest of the proposed AVA and shares a very small portion of
its eastern boundary with the southeastern portion of the proposed AVA.
Between the northern boundary of the High Valley AVA and the
southwestern boundary of the proposed AVA is a small strip of land. In
order to eliminate this ``no man's land'' between the established and
proposed AVAs, the petition proposed moving the northern boundary of
the High Valley AVA northward so that it is concurrent with the
southwestern boundary of the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA. The
proposal would increase the size of the High Valley AVA by 1,542 acres.
The petition claims that the region between the established AVA and the
proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA has characteristics that are
similar to those of the established High Valley AVA, namely soils and
topography.
T.D. TTB-30 states that the primary soils of the High Valley AVA
include Maymen, Hopland, and Mayacama series soils, which are primarily
gravelly loams and gravelly sandy clay loams. Also present within the
High Valley AVA are soils of the Konocti, Hambright, Benridge, and
Sodabay series. The petition to establish the High Valley AVA states
that the mineral serpentine is not found within the High Valley AVA.
The petition to expand the High Valley AVA notes that many of the same
soils are also found within the proposed expansion area, including
Benridge-Konocti association, Benridge-Sodabay loams, Maymen-Etsel-
Snook complex, Maymen-Hopland-Etsel association, and Maymen-Hopland-
Mayacama soils. Furthermore, serpentine is not found within the
proposed expansion area. The High Valley AVA expansion petition
included a map (Exhibit 10) showing the soil units of the proposed
expansion area and the High Valley AVA to support these claims. The
expansion petition also notes that the Cache Formation, which is the
geologic parent feature of the soils within the neighboring proposed
Long Valley-Lake County AVA, is not present within the proposed High
Valley AVA expansion area, nor is it present within the High Valley
AVA. TTB notes that, although the petition did not characterize soils
as a distinguishing feature of the proposed Long Valley-Lake County
AVA, the soils in the proposed High Valley AVA expansion area are more
similar to those of the High Valley AVA than to the soils of the
neighboring proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The petition mentioned the following soils within the
proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA: Lupoyoma silt loam, Wolf Creek
gravelly loam, Maywood variant sandy loam, Manzanita gravelly loam,
and Phipps Complex soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed High Valley AVA expansion petition also states that
the topography of the proposed expansion area is similar to that of the
High Valley AVA. T.D. TTB-30 describes the High Valley AVA as having
elevations of 1,700 to 1,800 feet along its valley floor and ridges
that rise steeply above the valley floor. The elevations of these ridge
tops along the southern face of High Valley Ridge range from 1,800 to
3,400 feet. The proposed expansion area contains the northern flanks of
the High Valley Ridge. Elevations in the proposed expansion area range
from a low of 1,720 feet along the adjacent boundary of the proposed
Long Valley-Lake County AVA to over 2,000 feet where the proposed
expansion area joins the High Valley AVA boundary along High Valley
Ridge. Therefore, the elevations within the proposed expansion area are
within the range of elevations found within the High Valley AVA.
Currently, the High Valley AVA boundary in the vicinity of the
proposed expansion area follows the 2,000-foot elevation contour along
the ridgeline of High Valley Ridge. It also follows a straight line
drawn between the 2,000-foot elevation contour and the boundary of the
Mendocino National Forest. The proposed boundary modification would
move this portion of the High Valley AVA boundary north to the 1,720-
foot elevation contour so that the northeastern boundary of the AVA
would be concurrent with the southwestern boundary of the proposed Long
Valley-Lake County AVA.
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 7,605-acre ``Long
Valley-Lake County'' AVA and to concurrently modify the boundaries of
the existing High Valley and North Coast AVAs merits consideration and
public comment, as invited in this document.
TTB is proposing the establishment of the new AVA and the
modification of the existing AVAs as one action. Accordingly, if TTB
establishes the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA, then the proposed
boundary modifications of the High Valley and
[[Page 13245]]
North Coast AVAs would be approved concurrently. If TTB does not
establish the proposed AVA, then the High Valley and North Coast AVA
boundaries would not be modified.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA
and the boundary modifications of the two established AVAs in the
proposed regulatory text published at the end of this document.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the proposed regulatory text. You may also view the proposed
Long Valley-Lake County AVA boundary and the proposed boundary
modifications of the North Coast and High Valley AVAs on the AVA Map
Explorer on the TTB website, at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer.
Impact on Current 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 labeled with an AVA name, at least 85
percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area
represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions
listed in Sec. 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)).
If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name
appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the
bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label.
Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in
a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new
label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an
AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July
7, 1986. See Sec. 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``Long Valley-Lake
County,'' will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance
under Sec. 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The
text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently,
wine bottlers using the name ``Long Valley-Lake County'' in a brand
name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the
origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible
to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule
is adopted as a final rule. TTB is not proposing to designate ``Long
Valley,'' standing alone, as a term of viticultural significance
because the term ``Long Valley'' is used to refer to multiple areas in
the United States. Therefore, wine bottlers using ``Long Valley,''
standing alone, in a brand name or in another label reference on their
wines would not be affected by the establishment of this proposed AVA.
If approved, the establishment of the proposed Long Valley-Lake
County AVA and the concurrent expansions of the North Coast AVA and the
High Valley AVA would allow vintners to use the following terms as AVA
appellations of origin if the wines meet the eligibility requirements
for the appellation:
(1) ``Long Valley-Lake County'' and ``North Coast'' for wine made
from grapes grown within the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA;
(2) ``High Valley'' and ``North Coast'' for wine made from grapes
grown within the High Valley AVA and the proposed High Valley AVA
expansion area; and
(3) ``North Coast'' for wine made from grapes grown in the North
Coast AVA and the proposed North Coast AVA expansion area.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on
whether TTB should establish the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA
and concurrently modify the boundaries of the established High Valley
and North Coast AVAs. TTB is interested in receiving comments on the
sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, topography, and other
required information submitted in support of the Long Valley-Lake
County AVA petition. In addition, given the proposed AVA's location
within the existing North Coast AVA, TTB is interested in comments on
whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the
distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates
it from the existing AVA. TTB is also interested in comments on whether
the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from
the North Coast AVA that the proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA
should not be part of the established AVA. Please provide any available
specific information in support of your comments.
TTB also invites comments on the proposed expansion of the existing
North Coast and High Valley AVAs. TTB is interested in comments on
whether the evidence provided in the petition sufficiently demonstrates
that the proposed North Coast AVA expansion area is similar enough to
the North Coast AVA to be included in the established AVA.
Additionally, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence
provided in the petition sufficiently demonstrates that the proposed
High Valley AVA expansion area is similar enough to the High Valley AVA
to be included in the established AVA. Comments should address the
boundaries, topography, soils, and any other pertinent information that
supports or opposes the proposed North Coast AVA and High Valley AVA
boundary expansions.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed Long Valley-Lake County AVA on wine labels that include the
term ``Long Valley-Lake County'' as discussed above under Impact on
Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments
regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area
name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a
conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that
conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that
approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural
enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to
avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name
for the proposed AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this proposal by using one of the
following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the
online comment form posted with this document within Docket No. TTB-
2022-0003 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available
under Notice No. 209 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments
submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the
top of the page.
U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
document. Your comments must reference Notice No. 209 and include your
name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in
[[Page 13246]]
English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public
disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider
all comments as originals.
Your comment must clearly state if you are commenting on your own
behalf or on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity. If
you are commenting on behalf of an organization, business, or other
entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as your
name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please
enter the entity's name in the ``Organization'' blank of the online
comment form. If you comment via postal mail, please submit your
entity's comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
Confidentiality
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for
public disclosure.
Public Disclosure
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, selected
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2022-0003 on the Federal e-
rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at https://www.regulations.gov. A
direct link to that docket is available on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 209. You may
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page
at https://www.regulations.gov. For more information about
Regulations.gov and how to comment, click on the ``FAQ'' tab at the
bottom of the site's homepage.
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization
(if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all
address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous
attachments or material that it considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also obtain copies of this proposed rule, all related
petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or
mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal at 20 cents per
8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies
of USGS maps or any similarly-sized documents that may be included as
part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings
Division by email using the web form at https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd, or by telephone at 202-453-1039, ext. 175, to request copies of
comments or other materials.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived
from the use of a viticultural area name would be 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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory
assessment.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this document.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend
title 27, chapter I, 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. Amend Sec. 9.30 by revising paragraphs (c)(18) through (20) to read
as follows:
Sec. 9.30 North Coast.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(18) Then north-northwest in a straight line for approximately 7.6
miles to the 1,851-foot summit of Red Rocks;
(19) Then northwest in a straight line for approximately 4.3 miles
to the 1,696-foot summit of Chalk Mountain;
(20) Then northwest in a straight line for approximately 6 miles to
the 4,005-foot summit of Evans Peak;
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 9.189 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) through (5);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c)(6); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) through (11) as paragraphs (c)(6)
through (c)(10).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 9.189 High Valley.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Proceed north along the western boundary of section 12 (also
the eastern boundary of the Mendocino National Forest), T14N/R8W, to
its intersection with the 1,720-foot elevation contour; then
(4) Proceed easterly along the meandering 1,720-foot elevation
contour for approximately 11.3 miles, crossing onto the Benmore Canyon
map, to the intersection of the elevation contour with the northern
fork of an unnamed creek in Salt Canyon known locally as Salt Creek in
section 23, T14N/R7W; then
(5) Proceed easterly (downstream) along Salt Creek approximately
760 feet to its intersection with the 1,600-foot elevation contour in
section 23; then
* * * * *
0
4. Add Sec. 9.__ to read as follows:
Sec. 9.__ Long Valley-Lake County.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Long Valley-Lake County''. For purposes of part 4 of this
chapter, ``Long Valley-Lake County'' is a term of viticultural
significance.
(b) Approved maps. The three United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
Long Valley-Lake County viticultural area are titled:
(1) Clearlake Oaks, California, 1996;
(2) Benmore Canyon, California, 1996; and
(3) Lower Lake, California, 1993.
(c) Boundary. The Long Valley-Lake County viticultural area is
located in Lake County, California. The boundary of the Long Valley-
Lake County viticultural area is as described as follows:
(1) The beginning point is on the Benmore Canyon map at the
intersection of State Highway 20 and the 1,600-foot elevation contour,
just north of Sweet Hollow Creek, in section 35, T14N/R7W.
(2) From the beginning point, proceed northerly along the
meandering 1,600-
[[Page 13247]]
foot elevation contour for approximately 4.1 miles to its intersection
with the northern fork of an unnamed creek in Salt Canyon known locally
as Salt Creek in section 23, T14N/R7W; then
(3) Proceed westerly (upstream) along Salt Creek approximately 760
feet to its intersection with the 1,720-foot elevation contour in
section 23, T14N/R7W; then
(4) Proceed northeasterly, then westerly along the meandering
1,720-foot elevation contour for approximately 11.3 miles, crossing
onto the Clearlake Oaks map, to the intersection of the elevation
contour with the Mendocino National Forest boundary along the western
boundary of section 12, T15N/R8W; then
(5) Proceed north along the Mendocino National Forest boundary
approximately 896 feet to its intersection with the unnamed creek in
Sulphur Canyon; then
(6) Proceed northeast (downstream) along the unnamed creek
approximately 770 feet to its intersection with the 1,400-foot
elevation contour in section 12, T14N/R8W; then
(7) Proceed northeasterly, then northwesterly along the meandering
1,400-foot elevation contour to its intersection with the Mendocino
National Forest boundary along the western boundary of section 36,
T15N/R8W; then
(8) Proceed north along the western boundary of section 36 to its
intersection with the northern boundary of section 36; then
(9) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 36 to its
intersection with the 1,400-foot elevation contour; then
(10) Proceed southeasterly along the 1,400-foot elevation contour,
crossing onto the Benmore Canyon map and continuing easterly along the
1,400-foot elevation contour to its intersection with the southern
boundary of section 11, T14N/R7W; then
(11) Proceed north in a straight line to the northern boundary of
section 11; then
(12) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 11,
crossing Wolf Creek, to the intersection of the section boundary with
the 1,320-foot elevation contour; then
(13) Proceed south in a straight line to the 1,400-foot elevation
contour in section 11; then
(14) Proceed southeasterly along the 1,400-foot elevation contour
to the western boundary of section 12, T14N/R7W; then
(15) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing the North Fork
of Cache Creek, to the 1,400-foot elevation contour in section 12 west
of the summit of Chalk Mountain; then
(16) Proceed southeasterly, then southerly along the meandering
1,400-foot elevation contour to its third intersection with the eastern
boundary of section 13; then
(17) Proceed west in a straight line to an unnamed, unimproved 4-
wheel drive road in section 13; then
(18) Proceed south in a straight line, crossing over a second
unnamed, unimproved 4-wheel drive road in section 13, to the 1,240-foot
elevation contour in section 24, T14N/R7W; then
(19) Proceed east in a straight line to the 1,400-foot elevation
contour in section 24; then
(20) Proceed southeasterly, then northeasterly along the meandering
1,400-foot elevation contour to its intersection with an unnamed creek
in section 19, T14N/R6W; then
(21) Proceed southwesterly (downstream) along the unnamed creek to
its intersection with the 1,200-foot contour in section 19; then
(22) Proceed south in a straight line to the northern boundary of
section 30, T14N/R6W; then
(23) Proceed southeast, then east along the northern boundary of
section 30 to its intersection with the 1,400-foot elevation contour;
then
(24) Proceed south in a straight line to the unnamed creek in
Benmore Canyon in section 30; then
(25) Proceed southeast in a straight line to the 1,400-foot
elevation contour in section 30; then
(26) Proceed southeasterly along the 1,400-foot elevation contour
to its intersection with the eastern boundary of section 31, T14N/R6W;
then
(27) Proceed generally south along the eastern boundary of section
31 and continuing along the eastern boundary of section 6, T13N/R6W,
crossing onto the Lower Lake map, to the intersection of the boundary
line and State Highway 20 north of Phipps Creek; then
(28) Proceed west in a straight line to the 1,200-foot elevation
contour; then
(29) Proceed northerly along the 1,200-foot elevation contour,
crossing onto the Benmore Canyon map, and continuing along the 1,200-
foot elevation contour to its intersection with an unnamed trail in
section 31, T14N/R6W; then
(30) Proceed north in a straight line to State Highway 20; then
(31) Proceed west along State Highway 20, returning to the
beginning point.
Signed: March 2, 2022.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: March 2, 2022.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2022-04999 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
