Rule2022-10590
Establishment of the West Sonoma Coast Viticultural Area
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 23, 2022
Effective
June 22, 2022
Issuing agencies
Treasury DepartmentAlcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Abstract
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 141,846-acre "West Sonoma Coast" viticultural area in Sonoma County, California. The viticultural area lies entirely within the established Sonoma Coast and North Coast viticultural areas and contains the established Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area. 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31164-31182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10590]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2018-0008; T.D. TTB-179; Ref: Notice No. 177]
RIN: 1513-AC40
Establishment of the West Sonoma Coast Viticultural Area
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes
the approximately 141,846-acre ``West Sonoma Coast'' viticultural area
in Sonoma County, California. The viticultural area lies entirely
within the established Sonoma Coast and North Coast viticultural areas
and contains the established Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area. 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: This final rule is effective June 22, 2022.
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:
Table of Contents
I. Background on Viticultural Areas
A. TTB Authority
B. Definition
C. Requirements
II. West Sonoma Coast Petition
A. General Characteristics
B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion of Comments Received and TTB Responses
A. Comments on Establishment of Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
B. Comments on Inclusion of Fort Ross-Seaview AVA
IV. TTB Determination
V. Boundary Description
VI. Maps
VII. Impact on Current Wine Labels
VIII. Regulatory Analysis and Notices
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Executive Order 12866
IX. Drafting Information
I. Background on Viticultural Areas
A. 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 Order 120-01.
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 to TTB of petitions
for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas
(AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
B. 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, once approved, a name and a delineated boundary
codified 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 the
wine's 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.
C. 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:
<bullet> Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
<bullet> An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed AVA;
<bullet> A narrative description of the features of the proposed
AVA affecting 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;
<bullet> If the proposed AVA is to be established within, or
overlapping, an existing AVA, an explanation that both identifies the
attributes of the proposed AVA that are consistent with the existing
AVA and explains how the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from the
existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate recognition;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
II. West Sonoma Coast Petition
A. General Characteristics
TTB received a petition from Patrick Shabram, on behalf of the West
Sonoma Coast Vintners, proposing the establishment of the ``West Sonoma
Coast'' AVA. The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is located in Sonoma
County, California, and is entirely within the established Sonoma Coast
AVA (27 CFR 9.116) and North
[[Page 31165]]
Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30) and entirely contains the smaller established
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA (27 CFR 9.221). The proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA contains 141,846 acres and has approximately 47 commercial
vineyards covering approximately 1,028 acres distributed throughout the
proposed AVA.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA include its topography, geology, and
climate. The topography of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is
characterized by the steep, rugged mountains and ridgelines that form
the Coastal Ranges. The summits of these coastal mountains can exceed
1,000 feet. The high elevations of the Coastal Ranges provide areas for
vineyards that are above the fog layer. The ridgelines also create
areas at lower elevations that are sheltered from the heaviest marine
fogs, where viticulture may take place successfully within the fog
line. By contrast, the region to the east of the proposed AVA, within
the Russian River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.66), is generally lower and the
slopes are less steep, particularly in the Santa Rosa Plain. To the
south, within the Petaluma Gap AVA (27 CFR 9.261), the topography is
characterized by gentle, rolling hills with lower elevations.
Much of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is underlain with
sedimentary rocks of the Franciscan Complex. The Franciscan Complex is
not easily eroded, which contributes to the high elevations and steep
slopes within the proposed AVA. Soils derived from the Franciscan
Complex are typically thin and have a high sand content, which promotes
good drainage in vineyards. To the east and south of the proposed AVA,
the Franciscan Complex is present, but the Wilson Grove Formation is
the dominant geological feature. To the east of the proposed AVA,
alluvial soils are also more common.
Lastly, the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA has a climate that is
more influenced by marine winds and fog than the more inland regions of
Sonoma County. Much of the proposed AVA is located within the Marine
zone climate classification, and gradually transitions to the Coastal
Cool zone.\1\ Within the proposed AVA, daytime temperatures are
generally cooler and nighttime temperatures are generally warmer than
in the more inland regions. Growing degree day (GDD) \2\ accumulations
within the proposed AVA are typically lower than within the region to
the east. Wind speeds within the proposed AVA are lower than within the
region to the south, where lower elevations allow the coastal winds to
enter relatively unhindered. According to the petition, higher wind
speeds can slow photosynthesis, thereby slowing fruit development and
maturation. The petition also states that the climate of the proposed
AVA is suitable for growing cooler climate varietals of grapes such as
Pinot Noir and Chardonnay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic Zones, University
of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986.
(This publication notes the findings of University of California
Extension Farm Advisors Robert Sisson and Paul Vossen regarding the
climate zones of Sonoma County, California.).
\2\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2nd ed.1974), pages 61-64. In the
Winkler climate classification system, annual heat accumulation
during the growing season, measured in annual growing degree days
(GDDs), defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each
degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees,
the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTB notes that the petition did not provide information on the
features of the region to the north of the proposed AVA, within
Mendocino County. However, the petition states that the proposed name
``West Sonoma Coast'' is not used to describe any region outside of
Sonoma County. Therefore, even if the region to the north has features
similar to those of the proposed AVA, the proposed AVA could not extend
into Mendocino County because Sec. 9.12(a)(1) of the TTB regulations
requires the proposed name to apply to the entire region included in
the proposed AVA.
B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TTB published Notice No. 177 in the Federal Register on December 6,
2018 (83 FR 62750), proposing to establish the West Sonoma Coast AVA.
In that document, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition
regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the
proposed AVA. The proposal also compared the distinguishing features of
the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas, including the established
Sonoma Coast, North Coast and Fort Ross-Seaview AVAs. For a detailed
description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and
distinguishing features of the proposed AVA, and for a detailed
comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the
surrounding areas, see Notice No. 177.
In Notice No. 177, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the
name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of
the petition. In addition, given the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA's
location within the Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs, TTB solicited
comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding
the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently
differentiates it from the two larger established AVAs. TTB requested
comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so
distinguishable from the Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs that the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA should no longer be part of the
established AVAs. Finally, TTB requested comments on whether the
evidence included in the petition regarding the distinguishing features
of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the smaller
established Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, and if the geographic features of
the proposed AVA are so distinguishable that the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA
should not be a part of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
The comment period for Notice No. 177 was originally scheduled to
close on February 4, 2019. However, TTB received two comments
requesting an extension of the comment period and subsequently
published Notice No. 177A on February 12, 2019 (84 FR 3353), which
reopened the comment period until April 15, 2019.
III. Discussion of Comments Received and TTB Responses
In response to Notice No. 177, TTB received a total of 72 comments.
However, one comment was a duplicate of a previously submitted comment,
and one comment was replaced by a later comment from the same submitter
before the original comment was posted. Therefore, a total of 70
comments were posted for public viewing within <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> docket
number TTB-2018-0008 (see <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>). Commenters
included local vineyard and winery owners and employees, wine writers
and educators, sommeliers, and consumers.
Of the 70 comments that TTB posted to the docket, 67 express either
support for or opposition to the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, while
two comments request an extension of the comment period (comments 27
and 28), and one comment withdraws but does not replace a previously
submitted and posted comment (comment 1, withdrawn by comment 42). Of
the 67 comments that express a specific opinion on the proposal, 49
support the proposed AVA, 1 comment supports the proposed AVA and
requests an
[[Page 31166]]
expansion of the boundary to include the commenter's vineyard (comment
55), 1 comment supports the establishment of the proposed AVA but
opposes the choice of name (comment 62), and 14 oppose the
establishment of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. Additionally, the
petitioner submitted two comments in defense of his analysis of the
proposed AVA (comments 54 and 67), including one (comment 54) which
withdrew and replaced his previously submitted and posted comment
(comment 36).
A. Comments on Establishment of Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
1. Proposed AVA Name
i. Opposing Comments
TTB received two comments that oppose the proposed ``West Sonoma
Coast'' name. One of these comments (comment 62) opposes the proposed
name, although the commenter does support the establishment of an AVA
limited to the extreme coastal regions of the established Sonoma Coast
AVA. The commenter, who is a self-identified grape grower and winemaker
in the established Sonoma Coast AVA, believes that the name ``West
Sonoma Coast'' begs the question where is the ``East Sonoma Coast?''
The commenter is also concerned that the proposed name ``will risk
creating an inland or east version of the Sonoma Coast, which could be
read by some as being less than'' the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
The commenter supports the establishment of the AVA if it were proposed
with another name; however, he did not suggest an alternative name for
the proposed AVA.
The second comment opposing the proposed ``West Sonoma Coast'' name
was submitted jointly by Lester Schwartz, owner of Fort Ross Vineyards,
and Daniel Schoenfeld, owner of Wild Hog Vineyard (comment 51). Both
vineyards are within the proposed AVA and also within the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA. The commenters assert that the name evidence provided by
the petitioner does not meet the requirements of Sec. 9.12(a)(1)(i)
and (ii) of the TTB regulations. The commenters provide two articles
which they believe demonstrate that the proposed AVA is not locally or
nationally known as ``West Sonoma Coast.'' The first article quotes the
director of sales and marketing of Peay Vineyards, saying that the West
Sonoma Coast Vintners' first petition to establish an AVA was rejected
by TTB ``because there was no historical reference to a West Sonoma
Coast,'' and that the ``proposed moniker seems nonsensical at first
blush'' because there is no ``East Sonoma Coast.'' \3\ The second
article is titled ``California's Edgiest, Riskiest Wine Region Is About
to Get a New Name: Five wines to know from West Sonoma Coast, as it'll
soon be known.'' \4\ The commenters assert that the phrases ``get a new
name'' and ``as it'll soon be known'' in the title of the article
suggests that the region of the proposed AVA is not currently known by
the name ``West Sonoma Coast.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ McIntyre, Dave. ``Why American wine labels aren't as
specific as they could be,'' Washington Post (December 31, 2016).
\4\ McCoy, Elin. ``California's Edgiest Riskiest Wine Region Is
About to Get a New Name: Five wines to know from West Sonoma Coast,
as it'll soon be known,'' Bloomberg Wine (August 31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters provided examples of different names currently used
to describe the region of the proposed AVA, including materials from
the West Sonoma Coast Vintners' West of the West Wine Festival and
Vintners Farm Camp. These materials use the terms ``True Coast,''
``True Sonoma Coast,'' ``Far Sonoma Coast,'' ``Sonoma Coast
Mountains,'' and ``Sonoma Coast Highlands,'' among others when
referring to the region of the proposed AVA. Another article included
in the comment refers to the region of the proposed AVA as ``Gold
Coast'' and ``California's cote d'or.'' \5\ The commenters further
claim that the name ``West Sonoma Coast'' does not apply to the entire
region, as portions of the proposed AVA are known by other names such
as ``Annapolis,'' ``Freestone,'' ``Occidental,'' and ``Fort Ross.'' The
commenters assert that the use of these other names to describe the
region of the proposed AVA shows that the proposed name is not locally
or nationally recognized, nor does it apply to the entire proposed AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Boone, Virginia. ``Wines Way Out West.'' Press Democrat
(July 21, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 51 also questions the petition's use of the West Sonoma
County Union High School District as evidence to support the proposed
AVA name. The commenters claim that the petition incorrectly portrays
the school district as the only school district serving the proposed
AVA when in fact there are multiple school districts. The commenters
included a map of the school districts serving the proposed AVA and
surrounding regions and note that the northern portion of the proposed
AVA is not within the school district, and 60 percent of the school
district is located outside the proposed AVA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Exhibit A-10 to comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the commenters claim that the name evidence provided by
the petitioner is not independent of the petitioner, as required by TTB
regulations. The commenters assert that the proposed name is a ``recent
fiction of the petitioner's own making.'' As evidence, the commenters
point to a statement from page 5 of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
petition that says that the name ``offers the best descriptive
delineator given the limitations of being able to use the most
appropriate identifier'' for the proposed AVA.
ii. Supporting Comments
Only one comment expressly supports the use of the proposed name
``West Sonoma Coast.'' The petitioner, Patrick Shabram, submitted a
comment (comment 67) which included additional name evidence and was
submitted in response to comment 51. The petitioner submitted an
article entitled ``Way Out on the West Sonoma Coast,'' which describes
places to visit in the towns of Annapolis, Occidental, Freestone, and
Sebastopol.\7\ Another item submitted was a wine list from the Lazy
Bear Restaurant \8\ in San Francisco that uses the ``West Sonoma
Coast'' moniker to describe several wines from the region of the
proposed AVA. For example, the Alma Fria Do[ntilde]a Margarita Vineyard
2014 pinot noir is listed as ``Freestone, West Sonoma Coast,
California,'' and the 2014 Alma Fria Holterman Vineyard pinot noir is
designated ``Annapolis, 2014, West Sonoma Coast, California.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Boone, Virginie. ``Way Out on the West Sonoma Coast,'' Wine
Enthusiast Magazine (June 13, 2016).
\8\ <a href="http://www.lazybearsf.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/20190129-Beverage-Menu.pdf">http://www.lazybearsf.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/20190129-Beverage-Menu.pdf</a>, pages 35, 67, and 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. TTB Response
After careful review of the comments and the name evidence provided
in the petition, TTB has determined that there is sufficient evidence
to support the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA name. The petition
provided ample evidence that the term ``West Sonoma'' is used to
describe the entire western portion of Sonoma County, where the
proposed AVA is located. TTB notes that the use of a directional term
such as ``West'' in an AVA name does not require that there be a
separate region known by the opposite direction. TTB has approved
several such AVAs, including the North Yuba (27 CFR 9.106), North Fork
of Long Island (27 CFR 9.113), and West Elks (27 CFR 9.172) AVAs.
TTB believes that the West Sonoma County Union High School District
name is an acceptable piece of evidence to demonstrate that the
proposed AVA
[[Page 31167]]
is in a region known as ``West Sonoma'' or ``West Sonoma Coast.'' The
petition claimed that ``much of the proposed AVA is within'' the school
district. The school district map included in comment 51 does not
disprove this claim. TTB notes that the school district name was not
the only piece of name evidence for the proposed AVA. The petition also
included magazine and newspaper articles, an excerpt from a book, and a
real estate listing that all referred to the region of the proposed AVA
as ``West Sonoma Coast'' or ``West Sonoma.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The name evidence is included in Exhibit J to the petition
in Docket TTB-2018-0008 at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTB does not agree with the assertion in comment 51 that the
Washington Post and Bloomberg Wine articles demonstrate that the
proposed name does not currently apply to the region. While the
Washington Post article notes the proposed ``West Sonoma Coast'' name
``seems nonsensical'' and that there is a lack of historical evidence
for this name, TTB does not believe these statements demonstrate the
region is not known as the ``West Sonoma Coast.'' Under TTB
regulations, a petitioner does not need to submit historical name
evidence in support of a proposed AVA name, but only needs to submit
evidence that the proposed AVA name is ``currently and directly
associated'' with the area ``in which viticulture exists'' (see Sec.
9.12(a)(1)). TTB finds that the petitioner for this rulemaking meets
this requirement, and has determined that both the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA petition and comment 67, which was submitted by the
petitioner, included multiple examples of the name ``West Sonoma
Coast'' or ``West Sonoma'' being used currently to describe the region
of the proposed AVA.
Also, TTB does not believe the Bloomberg Wine article's statement
that the region of the proposed AVA will ``soon be known'' by a ``new
name'' is evidence that the region is not known by the West Sonoma
Coast name. TTB finds this statement is referring to the fact that a
new AVA with the name ``West Sonoma Coast'' may soon be established.
TTB finds the article refers to the region of the proposed AVA in the
present tense as ``West Sonoma Coast,'' noting, ``The dramatic, 51-
mile-long sliver of land next to the ocean is known as the West Sonoma
Coast * * *.''
TTB also disagrees with the claim in comment 51 that, because the
region of the proposed AVA is known by many different names, it cannot
be designated as ``West Sonoma Coast.'' TTB regulations do not preclude
the region of a proposed AVA from being known by more than one name. In
fact, the towns of Annapolis, Freestone, and Occidental are already
within the established Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs, and the
existence of these communities did not affect the ability of TTB to
recognize the names ``Sonoma Coast'' and ``North Coast'' for those
AVAs. Additionally, none of the comments provided evidence that any of
the other names used to describe the region would be a more appropriate
choice. Therefore, TTB has determined that the petition provided
sufficient evidence to support the proposed name ``West Sonoma Coast.''
Additionally, TTB believes that the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
petition provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the towns of
Annapolis, Freestone, and Occidental are considered part of a larger
region known as West Sonoma Coast. For example, Exhibit J to the
petition included an article entitled ``West Sonoma Coast Wines are on
the Rise'' \10\ which mentions Summa Vineyards in Occidental, while
another article about the ``west (sic) Sonoma Coast'' mentions that
Peay Vineyards ``makes three estate pinots from their vineyard in
Annapolis.'' \11\ Furthermore, in comment 67, the petitioner provided
additional name evidence linking the proposed ``West Sonoma Coast''
name to the towns of Annapolis, Occidental, and Freestone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ McInerney, Jay. ``West Sonoma Coast Wines are on the
Rise,'' The Wall Street Journal (July 18, 2013).
\11\ Brown, Elaine Chukan. ``Sonoma's Far Coast: A haven for
pinot noir,'' Wines and Spirits (August 31, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, TTB disagrees with the assertion in comment 51 that the
petition did not include name evidence that is independent of the
petitioner, as required by Sec. 9.12(a)(1)(ii). The name evidence
included in the petition shows that the name has been recognized and
used by others to describe the region of the proposed AVA. For example,
the real estate ad for ``West Sonoma Coast Ranch Land'' that was
included in the petition provides evidence that the name ``West Sonoma
Coast'' is currently used by people outside the wine industry. TTB
acknowledges that many of the articles cited as name evidence in the
petition are references to the wine industry. However, they include
articles from newspapers and journals not exclusively dedicated to
wine, such as the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, suggesting that the
name has been accepted and used by people outside the wine industry.
2. General Distinguishing Features
i. Opposing Comments
Nine of the comments opposing the establishment of the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA raise objection to the proposal based on a lack
of distinguishing features. These opposing comments generally claim
that the features of the proposed AVA are too diverse to be combined
into a larger, generalized AVA, but do not provide evidence to support
these claims.
One of the comments (comment 52) asserts that the distinguishing
features data in the petition did not meet TTB's regulatory
requirements because the petition did not compare the proposed AVA to
all of the seven AVAs that overlap or are adjacent to the proposed AVA,
including the Northern Sonoma (27 CFR 9.70), Petaluma Gap, Russian
River Valley, Green Valley of Russian River Valley (27 CFR 9.57), Fort
Ross-Seaview, Sonoma Coast, and North Coast AVAs. The comment states
that the comparisons that were included in the petition are not
sufficiently supported by facts, but the comment did not provide any
evidence to refute the data in the petition.
Comment 51 also asserts that the petition failed to meet the
requirements of Sec. 9.12(a)(2) of the TTB regulations because it does
not explain with specificity how the commonalities and similarities
within the proposed AVA are different from those in the adjacent areas
outside the proposed AVA. The comment states that the petition does not
provide comparisons to the neighboring Northern Sonoma, Green Valley of
the Russian River Valley, and Petaluma Gap AVAs, and that the
petition's comparison to the North Coast AVA is insufficient. The
comment also claims that the proposed West Sonoma AVA consists of four
regions with ``too diverse a range of geographic and climatic features
to be considered a unitary AVA.'' These four regions are identified as
the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and the Annapolis, Freestone, and Occidental
regions. The comment asserts that an attempt to establish a Freestone-
Occidental AVA in 2008, as well as TTB's rejection of a request to
include the Annapolis region in the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA in 2011,
illustrate that the two regions are too different to be included in a
single AVA.
ii. Supporting Comments
Five of the supporting comments express general agreement that the
features of the proposed West Sonoma
[[Page 31168]]
Coast AVA are distinctive from those of the surrounding regions. These
five comments did not focus on a particular feature, nor did they
provide any additional evidence.
iii. TTB Response
After careful review of the comments and the petition, TTB has
determined that the information in the petition sufficiently
demonstrates that the features of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
generally distinguish it from the surrounding regions, including
neighboring and overlapping established AVAs. The TTB regulations at
Sec. 9.12(a)(2) require an AVA petition to explain how a proposed
AVA's distinguishing features are ``different in the adjacent areas
outside that boundary.'' The AVAs adjacent to the eastern boundaries of
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA are the Russian River Valley AVA and
the Sonoma Coast AVA, which entirely overlaps both the proposed AVA as
well as the Green Valley of Russian River AVA and most of the Russian
River Valley AVA. The Petaluma Gap AVA is adjacent to the southern
boundary of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA and is also partially
located within the Sonoma Coast AVA. The Green Valley of Russian River
Valley AVA is entirely within the Russian River Valley AVA, and the
Northern Sonoma AVA completely encompasses both the Green Valley of
Russian River Valley AVA and the Russian River Valley AVA.
TTB disagrees with the assertion in comments 51 and 52 that the
petition does not include comparisons of the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA's distinguishing features to those of the surrounding AVAs. In its
discussion of topography, the petition compares the proposed AVA to the
established Russian River Valley, Green Valley of Russian River Valley,
and Petaluma Gap AVAs. The climate section of the petition includes
GDD, average monthly maximum temperature, and monthly low temperature
data from the town of Windsor, which is within the Sonoma Coast,
Russian River Valley, and Northern Sonoma AVAs. The average monthly
maximum and minimum temperature graphs also include data from the city
of Santa Rosa, which is partially within the Sonoma Coast, Northern
Sonoma, and Russian River Valley AVAs. Wind speed data is provided from
Windsor, Santa Rosa, and the town of Valley Ford, which is within both
the Petaluma Gap AVA and the Sonoma Coast AVA. Finally, the geology
section of the petition contains a discussion of the geology of the
Russian River Valley and Petaluma Gap AVAs. Therefore, TTB has
determined that the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA petition meets the
regulatory requirements to provide comparison data from the ``adjacent
areas outside the boundary.'' TTB notes that its regulations do not
require that each of the features of the proposed AVA must be
distinguishable from all of the surrounding regions. In other words,
the feature that distinguishes a proposed AVA from the regions to the
east and west does not have to be the same feature that distinguishes
the proposed AVA from the north and south.
TTB also finds that the petition provided a sufficient comparison
of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA to the larger North Coast AVA
that encompasses it. As noted in T.D. ATF-145, which established the
North Coast AVA, the primary distinguishing features of the North Coast
AVA are a climate that is ``influenced by intrusions of cooler, damper
coastal marine air and fog, by temperatures that are cooler than the
Central Valley, and by greater rainfall than surrounding areas.'' \12\
The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA petition notes that, like the North
Coast AVA, the proposed AVA is influenced by maritime air. Although the
petition does not provide any additional specific comparisons to the
North Coast AVA, the petition does describe how the proposed AVA
differs from the Sonoma Coast, Russian River Valley, and Petaluma Gap
AVAs, all of which are also located in the North Coast AVA. Therefore,
TTB finds that the petition sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed
AVA shares a marine-influenced climate with the North Coast AVA, but is
also a distinct microclimate within the larger AVA. Also, due to its
smaller size, the proposed AVA experiences a much smaller range of
climatic variations within its proposed boundaries than the diverse,
multicounty North Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 48 FR 42973, 42976, September 21, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTB does not believe that the information included in comment 51
demonstrates that the characteristics of the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA are too diverse to be considered ``a unitary AVA.'' The comment
includes an elevation map (Exhibit A-2) and an elevation statistics
table (Exhibit A-3), both of which do show a variety of elevations
within the proposed AVA. However, neither the map nor the table provide
sufficient evidence to refute the petition's claims that the proposed
AVA's elevations are generally higher than elevations in the
surrounding regions, particularly in the Petaluma Gap AVA and the Santa
Rosa Plain region of the Russian River Valley AVA. For example, Exhibit
A-3 notes elevations of acreage outside the proposed AVA that exist at
less than 400 feet. However, this exhibit also shows that within the
four regions comprising the proposed AVA, no region has an average
vineyard elevation of below 500 feet. Additionally, the petition shows
the proposed AVA contains the mountainous terrain of the Coastal
Ranges, which contain summits which exceed 1000 feet, a contrast to the
Santa Rosa Plain to the east of the proposed AVA, which contains slopes
of less than 5 percent.
Comment 51 includes a letter from meteorologist Roland Clark that
also claims, ``While the petition seeks to simply distinguish the
western half [of the established Sonoma Coast AVA] from the eastern
half, it does not address the differences that have been proven to
exist between Annapolis, Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, Occidental and
Freestone,'' which are all communities within the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA.\13\ TTB regulations allow for an AVA to contain regions with
differences in distinguishing features. However, Sec. 9.12(a)(3) of
the TTB regulations requires that the regions within an AVA must still
share ``common or similar features.'' TTB believes the various regions
of the proposed AVA share climatic features, topography, and geology
that are more similar to each other than to the regions outside the
proposed AVA. TTB also notes that the entire proposed AVA is already
located within the established Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs,
further indicating that the various regions within the proposed AVA
share at least some similar features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Exhibit B-1 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTB does not agree with the assertion in comment 51 that the
exclusion of the Annapolis region from the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA
indicates that the two regions are too dissimilar to now be included in
a single AVA. Although the Annapolis region does not share enough of
the characteristics of the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, particularly the name
evidence, to be included with that AVA, the two regions share enough
similarities to be included in a larger, overlapping AVA, such as the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. As noted previously, both the Annapolis
region and the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA are already located within the
Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs, indicating that TTB found them to
share at least some broad characteristics of the two larger AVAs.
[[Page 31169]]
Last, in contrast to the assertion in comment 51, TTB does not
believe that submission of a petition to establish a Freestone-
Occidental AVA in 2008 indicates that the Freestone-Occidental region
is too distinct from the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and the Annapolis region
to be included with those regions in a larger AVA such as the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA. The submission of a petition to establish an AVA
within another AVA does not mean that the smaller region cannot have
features that are distinct enough to warrant recognition as an AVA and
still share some of the broader characteristics of the encompassing
AVA. For example, the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA is currently within the
larger, established North Coast and Sonoma Coast AVAs, along with the
Freestone-Occidental and Annapolis regions. Even though the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA is distinguishable from the Freestone-Occidental and
Annapolis regions, they all still share marine-influenced climates
characteristic of the two larger coastal AVAs. Therefore, TTB believes
that the submission of a petition to recognize the Freestone-Occidental
region as an AVA does not, by itself, serve as evidence that the region
is too distinct to be included in a larger AVA with the Annapolis
region and Fort Ross-Seaview AVA.
3. Climate
i. Opposing Comments
Six comments, comments 41, 43, 47, 49, 50, and 51, oppose including
the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
These commenters allege the climate of the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA is
distinct from other regions to be included in the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA. However, comment 51 was the only opposing comment that
addressed the petition's climate evidence and provided data to support
its claims. The comment states that the petition is incorrect in
asserting that the proposed AVA is largely within the Marine climate
zone, as developed by Robert Sisson and Paul Vossen.\14\ The comment
states that the vineyards in the Annapolis region of the proposed AVA
are within the Coastal Cool zone, not the Marine zone, and that
although some vineyards within the Occidental and Freestone regions are
within the Marine zone, others are in the Costal Cool zone. The comment
claims that the Sisson model of climate zones is ``unsupportive of [the
petitioner's] thesis for distinguishing the proposed AVA,'' because the
model claims that the Marine zone is too cold for grape growing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic Zones, University
of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 51 also disagrees with the petition's description of fog
intrusion within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA and the surrounding
regions, particularly the petition's claim that ridgelines form pockets
protected from the heaviest marine fog in the Freestone, Annapolis, and
Occidental regions of the proposed AVA. The comment states that the
Annapolis region has low-elevation gaps that allow for the penetration
of fog, and that there are no high coastal ridges to form protected
areas around Freestone. As evidence, the comment includes a statement
from the winemaker of Peay Vineyards.\15\ In the statement, the
winemaker says that her Annapolis-area vineyard is below the inversion
layer, and cool ocean fog persists throughout the day. Comment 51 also
includes a Sonoma County fog map created from satellite imagery from
August 24, 2018, that shows fog intruding into much of the county,
including the region east of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.\16\
The fog, however, appears to intrude only partially into the portion of
the proposed AVA that contains the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The statement was taken from a comment submitted to TTB in
2010 in response to Notice No. 34, which proposed the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA. The comment was submitted by Patrick Shabram, the
current petitioner. See 70 FR 11174, March 8, 2005.
\16\ See Exhibit A-6 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 51 also disputes the petition's claims that the proposed
AVA generally has warmer nocturnal temperatures than the regions to the
east. The comment includes a printout from a graph published by the
West Sonoma Coast Vintners that shows the average diurnal temperature
shift in the proposed AVA, the Green Valley of Russian River AVA, and
the Russian River Valley AVA from veraison through harvest.\17\
According to the comment, the graph shows that the Occidental region of
the proposed AVA has substantially lower nocturnal temperatures than
the Russian River Valley AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Exhibit D-8 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, comment 51 included a letter dated February 20, 2019,
from Ronald Clark, a retired naval meteorologist and president of
Weather Mission, Inc.\18\ The letter responds to additional maximum and
minimum temperature data and temperature variation calculations
submitted by the petitioner in comment 54. In the letter, Mr. Clark
states his belief that diurnal temperature difference is not what
``makes the difference in plant growth.'' Instead, Mr. Clark suggests
that GDDs, which take into consideration the total number of hours a
day with temperatures above 50 degrees F, are more important in
predicting plant growth, Mr. Clark concludes by stating that neither
the climate data in comment 54 nor the climate data provided in the
original petition provide sufficient evidence to establish the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Exhibit B-2 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 51 disagrees with the petition's claim that wind speeds
within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA are lower than within the
regions to the south and east. As evidence, the comment provided a map
of average annual wind speeds in the western portion of Sonoma
County.\19\ The map indicates that winds of up to 15.7 miles per hour
occur within the proposed AVA and the region to the south, while wind
speeds generally do not exceed 14.4 miles per hour in the region to the
east.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Exhibit A-4 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 51 further claims that the climate data in the petition is
incomplete because it does not provide information on rainfall amounts,
which the comment claims is required by Sec. 9.12(a)(3)(1) of the TTB
regulations. The comment includes a map showing the annual average
precipitation amounts for the proposed AVA and surrounding regions from
1981 to 2010.\20\ The comment asserts that the average annual
precipitation amounts in the four regions of the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA are too diverse to be included in a single AVA, and that the
differences between the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and the Annapolis,
Occidental, and Freestone regions are particularly significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Exhibit A-5 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last, comment 51 questions the methodology used by the petitioner
to calculate the GDDs of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA and the
surrounding regions. The comment included a second letter from Roland
Clark, dated January 11, 2019.\21\ The letter argues that even though
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA petition ``seeks to distinguish the
western half [of the established Sonoma Coast AVA] from the eastern, it
still does not address differences which have been proven to exist
between
[[Page 31170]]
Annapolis, Fort Ross-Seaview, Occidental and Freestone,'' which are all
regions within the proposed AVA. Mr. Clark claims that the most basic
method of calculating GDDs is ``to average the daily low and the daily
high temperature, then subtract the determined base temperature and
assign 0 for anything less than 0. So for each day, if the average
temperature does not exceed the base temperature, no GDD accumulation
is added * * *.'' According to the letter, a base temperature of 50
degrees Fahrenheit (F) is typically used when calculating GDDs for
grapes, and a cap temperature may be applied, typically 85 degrees
F.\22\ Graph 1 on page 12 of the petition uses 70 degrees F as a base
temperature and 90 degrees F as the cap. Mr. Clark claims he ran a
``simple average GDD model'' with 2017 and 2018 data from five
locations in the proposed AVA and two locations within the Russian
River Valley AVA. He then ran the same model on the same data using a
base temperature of 50 degrees F and a cap of 85 degrees F. Both
computations resulted in higher GDD accumulations for the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA than for any other the other locations. The results, he
claims, cast doubt on the data in Graph 1 of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Exhibit B-1 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\22\ On days when the actual maximum temperature exceeds the cap
temperature, the cap temperature is used in place of the maximum
temperature when calculating GDDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clark's letter also questioned Table 3 on page 16 of the
petition, noting that the methodology for calculating the information
in Table 3 is not described and the data is incomplete. In particular,
only one year of data is available from the Red Car Vineyard and KJ
Seascape weather stations within the proposed AVA. The letter states
that Tables 4 and 5 on pages 16 and 17 of the petition use a single
location to represent the entirety of the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA. Because the methodology of calculating the GDDs is not known and
the data is incomplete, the letter concludes that the petition's
conclusion of cooler temperatures existing within the proposed AVA than
in the surrounding regions cannot be deemed accurate.
ii. Supporting Comments
Thirty-four comments specifically expressed support for the climate
evidence in the petition. These commenters generally state that the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA's climate is more affected by the marine
breezes and fog than the regions farther inland, resulting in cooler
daytime temperatures, warmer nighttime temperatures, and later harvest
dates. Only 2 of these 32 comments provided objective data, rather than
anecdotal evidence, to support their claims. Both of these comments
were submitted by the petitioner (comments 54 and 67).
In his first comment (comment 54), the petitioner submitted data
relating to the 2018 average maximum and minimum temperatures and
average temperature variation for six locations within the proposed
AVA, including the Annapolis, Freestone, and Occidental regions and the
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, and four locations in the neighboring Russian
River Valley AVA. The data shows that in 2018, the locations within the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA had lower average maximum temperatures
and higher minimum temperatures than the locations in the Russian River
Valley AVA. The average diurnal temperature variations for the proposed
AVA locations were also smaller than the variations for the Russian
River Valley AVA. This data supports the petitioner's original climate
claims relating to maximum daytime and minimum nighttime temperatures
within the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions.
In comment 67, the petitioner clarifies his characterization of the
climatic zones created by Robert Sisson and Paul Vossen, which was
questioned in comment 51. The petitioner states that the climatic zones
are a ``brilliant'' creation, but that since their creation, ``the kind
of weather data available, trial and error with different sites,
population densities, and even the climate have all changed.'' He
states that it is correct to claim that ``sections of the West Sonoma
Coast AVA with active viticulture are within the Marine climate type,''
which was originally created to define regions too cold for successful
viticulture. He agrees with comment 51 that portions of the proposed
AVA are within the Coastal Cool zone, including much of the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA and portions of the Occidental and Freestone regions. He
states that the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is based on ``the
coolest parts of the [established] Sonoma Coast AVA, and that would
include the cooler sections of the Coastal Cool climate type and the
transitional Marine zone.'' He concludes by suggesting that it would be
more accurate to say that vineyards in the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and
Annapolis region of the proposed AVA straddle the ``edge'' between the
Coastal Cool and Marine zones, while vineyards ``near'' Occidental and
Freestone are within the Marine zone.
In comment 67, the petitioner also addresses the issue of fog
intrusion that was raised in comment 51. He states that the comment
inaccurately interpreted the summary in Notice No. 34 of the statement
from the winemaker at Peay Vineyards to mean that the Peay Vineyards
near Annapolis are below the inversion layer, not above it. The
petitioner states that within the proposed AVA, the regions below the
fog are generally below 400 feet. Vineyards in the Annapolis region,
including the Peay Vineyards, are planted at elevations between 550 and
800 feet, putting them within the fog and not below it. He states that
this distinction is important because ``solar radiation has less fog to
penetrate to reach vines'' within the fog layer, as opposed to vines
planted below the fog. Sitting below the fog in the Annapolis region,
the petitioner concludes, ``would likely mean grapes that do not
consistently mature.''
The petitioner also responds to comment 51's criticism of the GDD
data and methodology used in the petition. He states that the data from
Red Car Estate Vineyard used in Graph 1 of the petition is not from a
single year, as claimed in comment 51, but is from the years stated in
the heading of the graph. He clarifies that Graph 1 of the petition was
provided by the West Sonoma Coast Vintners, as noted in the petition,
and that he did not describe the methodology used to calculate the GDDs
in that graph because he ``could not definitively verify the
methodology'' the association used. The petitioner says that he did
receive some partial data sets to test the GDD calculations, but he was
unable to do a complete test because the totals for Annapolis,
Occidental, and Freestone were in aggregate. He also states that
according to the background data, he deduced that GDD was calculated
using April 1 to October 31 heat accumulations for temperatures above
50 degrees F, with no cap temperature. The petitioner states that this
method is commonly used in the wine industry and is the basis for A.J.
Winkler's and M.A. Amerine's wine regions, often referred to as the
Winkler Index or Winkler Scale,\23\ and is the method he used for the
other GDD calculations in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Winkler, A.J., et al. General Viticulture, University of
California Press, 1962, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last, the petitioner addresses the completeness of his GDD data in
the other tables and graphs in the petition, as questioned in comment
51. The petitioner acknowledges that he lacked complete data from every
station and every year listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the petition, but
that he clearly stated as
[[Page 31171]]
such in his petition. He also noted that weather station data is
becoming increasingly more available, ``but because data are available
today doesn't mean that they were available at the time of the West
Sonoma Coast study.'' He also says that he checked the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA, Graton, and Sebastopol weather stations used for the 2017
and 2018 GDD calculations in Exhibit B-1 of comment 51. The petitioner
found that the data for those stations for the period during which the
petition was written was unavailable or incomplete and, therefore,
would have been of little use to him at the time he was developing the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA petition.
The petitioner also states that he was not aware of the degree day
modeling tool from Oregon State University mentioned in comment 51 and
instead relied on growers to provide him with data or on data he
gathered from the Western Region Climate Center, the California Data
Exchange Center, and the California Irrigation Management Information
System. He notes that, after learning of the degree day modeling tool,
he attempted to test it by locating several stations just outside the
proposed AVA. He particularly looked for data from 2010 to 2014, to be
consistent with the years he had used in the petition. The petitioner
claims that data from those years was also incomplete for the stations
he found using the modeling tool. He also discovered that the modeling
tool uses temperature observations and digital elevation models to
interpolate high and low temperatures and precipitation. He asserts
that when this method is used for single-year data sets, the results
``are in 4KM x 4KM pixels, which isn't very helpful when trying to
assess climatic variations at the scale that assessment of viticulture
is usually done at.'' Instead, the method is best used with thirty-year
normals, and the petitioner states he seldom has 30 years of historical
data to make meaningful use of the model. Therefore, he does not
believe that using the Oregon State University modeling tool would have
provided more accurate GDD data at the time he was developing the
petition than the data he obtained from weather stations.
iii. TTB Response
After reviewing the petition and the comments, TTB has determined
that the climate of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA distinguishes it
from the surrounding regions. TTB agrees with the petition's statement
that much of the proposed AVA is in the climate zone originally
identified as ``Marine'' by Sisson and Vossen, which was characterized
as being too cool for grape growing. TTB points to the climate zone map
included in the petition as evidence that much of the proposed AVA is
in the Marine zone.\24\ TTB also notes that comment 51 acknowledges
that some vineyards in the Freestone and Occidental regions are within
the Marine zone. TTB lacks data that determines definitively the reason
viticulture is now occurring in a zone originally defined as too cool
for grape growing. However, TTB has determined that the petition's
description of a large portion of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
being in the Marine zone is not inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Exhibit H of the petition in docket TTB-2018-2008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTB finds that, although part of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
is within the Coastal Cool zone, the climate zone map in the petition
shows the portion within the Coastal Cool zone is smaller than the
portion of the regions east of the proposed AVA that are within the
Coastal Cool zone. TTB also notes that the petition did not state that
the proposed AVA contains only regions within the Marine zone; the
petition describes the climate as `` `Marine' to `Coastal Cool' '' and
notes that the proposed AVA ``contains the western edge of the Coastal
Cool climate type.'' Therefore, TTB believes that the proposed AVA's
climate can be distinguished from that of the region farther east,
which lacks the Marine zone and is instead in the Coastal Cool, Coastal
Cool transitioning to Coastal Warm, and Coastal Warm zones.
Based on the climate zone map in the petition, TTB does not agree
with the assertion in comment 51 that a ``significant portion of the
Russian River Valley AVA in the eastern portion of the Sonoma Coast
AVA'' is within the Marine zone. Using the climate zone map, TTB
believes that only the extreme southern portion of the Russian River
Valley AVA, roughly the triangular region from Cunningham south to
Roblar and east to U.S. Highway 101, would be in the Marine zone. TTB
agrees that the fog map included as Exhibit A-6 to comment 51 shows
marine fog extending east of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA into
the Russian River Valley AVA, but the map only shows the fog as it
occurred on a single day. Therefore, TTB cannot determine from the map
alone that the petition was incorrect in stating that the region east
of the proposed AVA is not typically subjected to the heaviest marine
fog and air.
TTB does agree with comment 51 that the Petaluma Gap AVA, to the
south of the proposed AVA, is also within the same Marine zone as much
of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. However, the petition did not
use climate zones to distinguish the proposed AVA from the region to
the south, and instead used topography, geology, and wind speed.
Therefore, in spite of the climate zone similarity, TTB has determined
that the petition provided suitable evidence for not including the
Petaluma Gap AVA in the proposed AVA.
TTB also agrees with comment 51 that several tables in the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA petition include incomplete or insufficient GDD
data. For that reason, TTB did not consider the data in Tables 3 and 4
of the petition when determining if GDDs were a distinguishing feature
of the proposed AVA. Additionally, the petition notes that the Laguna
de Santa Rosa GDD data in Table 5 came from a station located in a
bowl-like region that trapped cooler air and was thus not
representative of the climate of the majority of the Russian River
Valley AVA. For this reason, TTB did not consider the Laguna de Santa
Rosa GDD data in that table. However, TTB did determine that Table 2 of
the petition contains sufficient data to indicate lower GDD
accumulations in the proposed AVA than are generally found in the
region to the east. Table 2 includes four consecutive years of GDD data
from a station in Occidental, located within the proposed AVA, and one
from Windsor, within the Santa Rosa Plain \25\ that covers much of the
adjacent Russian River Valley AVA to the east of the proposed AVA. Each
year, GDD accumulations within the proposed AVA were lower than those
from the Windsor station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/centers/california-water-science-center/science/santa-rosa-plain">https://www.usgs.gov/centers/california-water-science-center/science/santa-rosa-plain</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTB does not agree that the GDD calculations in Exhibit B-1 of
comment 51 refute the petition's claims of lower GDD accumulations in
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. First, the comment's calculations
used data from 2017 and 2018, which was not available at the time the
petition was submitted. Second, the comment acknowledges that the
summers of 2017 and 2018 were the two hottest summers on record in
California, including the coastal regions, so it is possible that the
resulting GDD accumulations are skewed and not indicative of typical
weather patterns in Sonoma County. Additionally, the calculations in
comment 51 used a growing season period of March 1 to October 31,
compared to the petition's growing season of April 1 to October 1.
[[Page 31172]]
Finally, both of comment 51's GDD calculation methods used a cap
temperature, whereas the petition's GDD method did not include a cap
temperature. For these reasons, TTB does not find that the GDD
calculations in comment 51 can be compared directly to the GDD
calculations in the petition, nor do they disprove the petition's
claims that GDD accumulations east of the proposed AVA are generally
higher than within the proposed AVA.
TTB also disagrees that the graph created by the West Sonoma Coast
Vintners and included in comment 51 as Exhibit D-8 disproves the
petition's claim that nocturnal temperatures in the proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA are generally warmer than nocturnal temperatures in
the regions to the east. The graph does show that nighttime
temperatures in the Russian River Valley and Green Valley of Russian
River AVA are warmer than two of the three proposed AVA locations at
hours 20 through 24. However, the graph also shows that temperatures in
the Russian River Valley and Green Valley of Russian River Valley AVAs
continue to fall into the early morning hours, so that between hours 0
and 8, only one proposed AVA location has lower temperatures.
Additionally, the graph does not include a period of record for the
data, nor does it say where the weather stations were located within
the Russian River Valley and Green Valley of Russian River Valley AVAs.
As a result, TTB cannot determine the period of time the data
represents, or if the data for each AVA comes from a single station or
is an average of multiple stations' data. Therefore, TTB does not
believe that the graph in comment 51 provides sufficient evidence to
disprove the nocturnal temperature data in the petition.
TTB disagrees with the assertion in Exhibit B-2 of comment 51 that
the proposed AVA should not be established because the climate data in
comment 54 is insufficient. TTB agrees that the single year of average
maximum and minimum temperatures included in comment 54 is insufficient
by itself to demonstrate climate differences. However, the petition did
include similar data collected from multiple consecutive years. As
described in Notice No. 177, the temperature data suggested that the
proposed AVA generally has lower maximum temperatures and higher
minimum temperatures than the region to the east. The information
included in Exhibit B-2 of comment 51 does not disprove the data
included in the petition, nor does it disprove the average maximum
temperature and average minimum temperature date included in comment
54.
TTB does agree that the single year of diurnal temperature
variation data included in comment 54 is insufficient to demonstrate a
difference between the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions.
However, TTB notes that diurnal temperature variation data was not
included in the original petition, nor was it considered to be a
distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA in Notice No. 177. Instead,
GDDs and average monthly maximum temperatures and average monthly low
temperatures were discussed as distinguishing climatic features. TTB
believes that the climate data in the petition, along with the
topographic and geologic information, is sufficient to demonstrate that
conditions within the proposed West Sonoma Coast differ from those of
the surrounding regions.
With respect to the question of the petition's wind speed data, TTB
finds the wind speed map in comment 51 (Exhibit A-4) does not refute
the petition's claim of higher wind speeds to the south of the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA, within the Petaluma Gap AVA. TTB agrees with
comment 51 that the wind speed map does appear to show that wind speeds
immediately to the east of the proposed AVA, within the western
portions of the Russian River Valley and Green Valley of Russian River
AVAs, are lower, whereas the data in the petition that indicates higher
wind speeds is from a location farther east within the Russian River
Valley AVA, in the town of Windsor. The comment's map indicates that
wind speeds in the western parts of the Russian River Valley and Green
Valley of Russian River Valley AVAs are generally less than 12 miles
per hour. While wind speeds within those two AVAs may generally be
lower than those generally found within the proposed AVA, the map also
suggests that there are, in fact, regions east of the proposed AVA that
do have higher wind speeds. In particular, the map shows wind speeds
east of the Annapolis region of the proposed AVA reaching 15.7 miles
per hour, compared to calmer speeds of between 0 and 14.3 miles per
hour near Annapolis. However, the regions of higher wind east of
Annapolis have similar speeds to the regions near the southern end of
the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and between the towns of Jenner and Carmel,
which calls into question the petition's claim that winds east of the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA are higher than within the proposed AVA.
As a result, TTB has determined that wind speeds cannot definitively
distinguish the proposed AVA from the region to the east. However, TTB
continues to believe that wind speed does distinguish the proposed AVA
from the region to the south, within the Petaluma Gap AVA.
Last, TTB disagrees with comment 51 that the petition is incomplete
because it did not include precipitation data from within the proposed
AVA and the surrounding regions. The TTB regulations in Sec.
9.12(a)(3)(i) list precipitation as a climate feature that may be used
to distinguish a proposed AVA. However, the TTB regulations do not
require a petition to include all the types of climate information
listed in Sec. 9.12(a)(3)(i). Therefore, the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA can meet the regulatory requirements without discussing
precipitation--or without mentioning climate at all--as long as at
least one of the features listed in Sec. 9.12(a)(3) is used to
distinguish it from the surrounding regions.
4. Topography and Elevation
i. Opposing Comments
Two comments specifically oppose the petition's characterization of
the topography and elevation of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA and
the surrounding regions. However, only comment 51 provides evidence to
support its claims. Comment 51 first asserts that the four main regions
of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA (the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and
the Annapolis, Freestone, and Occidental regions) are too diverse in
topography and elevation to be included in a single, cohesive AVA. The
comment claims the petition's characterization of the proposed AVA as a
region of steep, rugged mountains and ridgelines is inaccurate.
According to the comment, the region near Annapolis is rugged and
steep, but the Freestone region is not mountainous and instead consists
of low rolling hills and valleys. The comment asserts the Occidental
region is a mixture of mountains, ridgelines, and rolling hills with
low valleys. Comment 51 also states that, contrary to the petition's
claims of lower elevations outside the proposed AVA, the adjacent areas
have peaks exceeding 1,000 feet.
The comment also includes a map of vineyard locations and
elevations within the proposed AVA and states that vineyards in the
four regions of the proposed AVA are planted at varying elevations,
which results in different growing conditions within the proposed
AVA.\26\ For example, the comment claims that all the vineyards except
one
[[Page 31173]]
within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA are planted above 900 feet, which is
above the fog line, while all vineyards in the Annapolis and Freestone
regions are planted below 900 feet, which is within and below the fog
line. Vineyards within the Occidental region, according to the comment,
are planted both above and below the fog line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Exhibit A-2 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Supporting Comments
Twenty-one of the supporting comments address the topography and
elevation of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. All these comments
note the area within the proposed AVA has high elevations and
mountainous terrain, and some comments assert these two attributes
contribute to unique growing conditions for viticulture within the
proposed AVA. Comment 67, submitted by the petitioner, was the only
supporting comment that provided substantive, non-anecdotal evidence.
In comment 67, the petitioner responds to claims in comment 51
about the accuracy of the topographic and elevation evidence in the
petition. The petitioner first addresses the topography of the
Freestone region of the proposed AVA, which he described in the
petition as steep. He acknowledges that the terrain ``transitions to
rolling hills south of Freestone, but the territory west of Freestone
remains steep.'' As evidence, he included a slope map of the entire
proposed AVA and the surrounding regions,\27\ as well as a topographic
profile of the region stretching westward from the most major road
intersection in Freestone to the coast.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Attachment B of comment 67 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\28\ See Attachment A of comment 67 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the elevations within the proposed AVA, the
petitioner disputes the claim in comment 51 that the Freestone region
has elevations as low as 52 feet and lacks high coastal ridges. He
notes that both Attachments A and B of his comment 67 demonstrate the
presence of higher ridges in the regions west of Freestone. He states
that elevations west of Freestone do not drop as low as 50 feet along
Salmon Creek until the creek is less than 2\1/2\ miles from the Pacific
Ocean. The petitioner believes the low region described in comment 51
likely refers to the land along Estero Americano, which is south of the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, within the Petaluma Gap AVA.
Last, comment 67 acknowledges that there are elevations over 1,000
feet within the Russian River AVA, as stated in comment 51. However,
the petitioner states that the description of the elevations of the
Russian River Valley AVA that he included in the proposed AVA petition
referred to ``the terrain east of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA at
its adjacent location south of the Russian River (i.e., moving east
from the common border onto the Santa Rosa Plain).'' He then asserts
that the higher peaks within the Russian River Valley AVA ``are removed
from the coastal ridges of the West Sonoma Coast'' and therefore are
not relevant to the distinguishing characteristics of the entire
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
iii. TTB Response
After reviewing the information in the petition and the comments,
TTB has determined that topography and elevation are distinguishing
features of the proposed AVA. TTB agrees with comment 51 that there is
a range of elevations and slope angles within the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA. However, TTB does not agree with comment 51 that the
topography is too diverse to be included in a unified AVA. As noted
earlier, the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is located within two
larger established AVAs: The Sonoma Coast AVA and the North Coast AVA.
TTB recognizes that any AVA may have a degree of variation in its
topography, but the AVA must still be distinguishable from the
surrounding regions. The elevation map included in comment 51 shows
that, while elevations below 400 feet do occur in the proposed AVA,
most of the proposed AVA contains elevations between 400 and 2,297
feet. The Annapolis and Occidental regions, as well as the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA all contain elevations between 400 and 2,297 feet, while
the region near Freestone also contains elevations between 400 and 900
feet.
TTB also agrees with comment 51 that certain peaks within the
Sonoma Coast and Russian River AVAs east of the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA do exceed 1,000 feet. However, TTB does not believe that the
existence of certain peaks to the east of the proposed AVA that have
elevations above 1,000 feet refutes the petition's claims that
elevations outside the proposed AVA are generally lower and less steep.
The Russian River Valley is still largely characterized by the Santa
Rosa Plain, which the petition states has lower elevations and gentle
slopes of 5 percent or less. The Santa Rosa Plain is also located
within the portion of the Sonoma Coast AVA that does not include the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. To the south of the proposed AVA is the
Petaluma Gap AVA (27 CFR 9.261), which is distinguished from
surrounding areas by containing ``low, rolling hills not exceeding 600
feet,'' ``small valleys and fluvial terraces,'' and ``flat land along
the Petaluma River * * *.'' (See T.D. TTB-149, December 7, 2017, 82 FR
57660).
5. Geology
i. Opposing Comments
Four comments oppose the AVA, asserting it contains geologies too
diverse to be within one AVA. One of the opposing comments questions
the petition's description of the geology of the proposed AVA and the
surrounding regions. Comment 51 asserts that the proposed AVA is not
comprised predominately of sedimentary rock of the Franciscan Complex,
as claimed in the petition, but instead is comprised of a variety of
geologic features. The comment included a letter from professional
geologist Ryan Padgett,\29\ along with a map of the geology of the
proposed AVA and the surrounding regions \30\ as evidence of the
variety of geologic features within the proposed AVA. The comment
states that the region near Annapolis where vineyards are planted is
mainly Ohlson Ranch formation. Vineyards in the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA
are planted mostly on what the comment describes as a ``m[eacute]lange
and greywacke sandstone and in a metabasalt unit of the Franciscan
Formation with some localized plantings in Ohlson Ranch Formation * *
*.'' Last, the comment states that vineyards in the Freestone and
Occidental regions are predominately planted in the Wilson Grove
formation. The comment asserts that this fact is contrary to the
petition's claim that the Wilson Grove formation does not exist within
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Exhibit C of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\30\ See Exhibit A-8 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Supporting Comments
Nineteen supporting comments address the geology of the proposed
AVA, generally noting that the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA has a
unique underlying geological structure. Some comments assert that the
area within the proposed AVA has unique soil, and note this soil is
comprised primarily of sedimentary material, rather than alluvium.
Comment 67, submitted by the petitioner, was the only comment that
included substantive evidence to support its claims. Comment 67 first
[[Page 31174]]
states that, contrary to the assertion in comment 51, the petition does
not claim the Wilson Grove Formation is not found within the proposed
AVA. Instead, the petition states that the Wilson Grove Formation is
``a much more common unit in the Petaluma Gap and southwestern Russian
River Valley'' outside of the proposed AVA. The petitioner agrees with
comment 51 that the Wilson Grove Formation is found in the southeastern
portion of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. However, the petitioner
provides a geologic map \31\ of the proposed AVA and surrounding
regions to support his claim that, while the Wilson Grove Formation is
present in portions of the proposed AVA, it is more common in the
regions to the south and east of the proposed AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Attachment G of comment 67 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. TTB Response
After reviewing the petition and the comments, TTB has determined
that geology is a distinguishing feature of the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA. TTB agrees with the petitioner's statement in comment 67
that the petition did not exclude the Wilson Grove formation entirely
from the proposed AVA. The petition indicates that the formation is
present in a portion of the proposed AVA, but the formation is much
more common outside the proposed AVA, particularly in the Petaluma Gap
and Green Valley of Russian River Valley AVAs and the southwestern
region of the Russian River Valley AVA. TTB believes the geologic maps
included in comments 51 and comment 67 support the petitioner's claims.
TTB also believes that the geologic maps in comments 51 and 67,
along with the letter from the professional geologist included in
comment 51, do not refute the petitioner's claims regarding the
prevalence of the geologic unit known as the Franciscan Formation
within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. Therefore, TTB has
determined that the petition correctly identifies the Franciscan
Formation as comprising much of the proposed AVA.
Although comment 51 is correct that the vineyards in the Annapolis,
Freestone, and Occidental regions of the proposed AVA are planted in
geologic features other than the Franciscan Complex, those regions
still contain large regions of Franciscan Complex. For example, the
Annapolis region contains geologic units identified on the map in
Exhibit A-8 of the comment as ``Sandstone-Maastrichtian (Franciscan
Complex).'' The Freestone and Occidental regions contain units
identified as ``Graywacke and m[eacute]lange (Franciscan Complex).''
Furthermore, the geologic map indicates that vineyards in the Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA are planted on the same unit of the Franciscan
Formation found in the Annapolis region. Therefore, TTB believes the
petition is correct when it states that the Franciscan Complex
comprises much of the proposed AVA.
6. Proposed AVA Boundary
i. Opposing Comments
Two comments specifically object to the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA on the basis of the proposed boundary. The two comments, comments
51 and 52, both express the belief that the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA contains too many public and protected lands and beaches on which
vineyards will never be planted. Comment 51 includes a map of the
public and protected lands within the proposed AVA \32\ and further
states that lands unavailable for commercial viticulture should be
removed from the proposed boundaries, per guidance given in TTB's AVA
Manual for Petitioners.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Exhibit A-9 to comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\33\ <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/wine/p51204_ava_manual.pdf">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/p51204_ava_manual.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 51 also claims that when TTB excluded the town of Fort Ross
in the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, the bureau set a precedent for omitting
coastal regions from AVAs. According to the comment, TTB did not agree
with the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA petition's proposal to include the town
in the AVA because the town was located in a cold, low-elevation area
near the coastline where viticulture is not viable.
Comment 51 also asserts that TTB should reject the proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA boundary because the written boundary description in
the petition does not match the proposed boundaries drawn on the USGS
maps or the boundary as published in Notice No. 177. The comment
provided several examples of what it described as inaccuracies in the
written boundary description, including incorrect distances between
points and erroneous section numbers.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Exhibit A-1 to comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another issue raised in comment 51 is the placement of the
northeastern boundary of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. The
northeastern boundary omits from the proposed AVA a mountainous region
that comment 51 refers to as the ``Excluded Corridor.'' According to
the comment, this region contains similar topography to the proposed
AVA and was arbitrarily excluded.
Comment 51 further claims that the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
boundary is arbitrarily drawn because it does not include all the
regions previously promoted by the West Sonoma Coast Vintners as being
in the ``West Sonoma Coast.'' The comment includes several West Sonoma
Coast Vintners publications showing that portions of the Russian River
Valley, Green Valley of Russian River Valley, and Petaluma Gap AVAs, as
well as the region informally known as Sebastopol Hills, were at
various times represented by the association as being part of the
``West Sonoma Coast.'' \35\ The comment notes that as late as 2018, the
association promoted the Sebastopol Hills region as part of the ``West
Sonoma Coast AVA Marketing Region.'' \36\ According to the comment,
these various representations of the ``West Sonoma Coast'' demonstrate
that the boundary proposed in the AVA petition is not based on solid
name or distinguishing features evidence, as required by Sec.
9.12(a)(2) of the TTB regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Exhibits D-1 through D-7 of comment 51 in docket TTB-
2018-0008 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\36\ See Exhibit D-2 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Supporting Comments
In response to Notice No. 177, TTB received thirteen comments that
support the boundaries of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. Nine of
the comments generally express support for the proposed AVA as a way to
create a smaller, more tightly defined AVA within the larger, more
diverse Sonoma Coast AVA.
Four comments submitted in response to Notice No. 177 specifically
express support for the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA boundary as it
was described in the proposed rule. One of these comments (comment 55)
supports the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA boundaries, in general, but
also asks that they be expanded. Comment 55, submitted by Hans Vidkjer
of Atlas Vineyard Management, requests that the proposed northeastern
boundary be expanded slightly to include Walala Vineyard. Mr. Vidkjer
claims that the vineyard, which contains 18 acres of Pinot Noir, is
only 0.7 mile east of the proposed AVA boundary. The comment contains
evidence that Mr. Vidkjer believes demonstrates that the Walala
Vineyard has mean temperatures, nocturnal temperatures, elevations,
slopes, and geology that are similar to
[[Page 31175]]
those of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
The other three comments specifically support using the coastline
as the western boundary of the proposed AVA. Comment 53, submitted by
the winegrower of Peay Vineyards, states that the coastline was used as
the western boundary ``as a matter of simplicity.'' Comment 70,
submitted by a self-identified local wine industry member, believes the
coastal regions should remain in the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
The comment acknowledges that is it difficult to ripen grapes in the
extreme coastal regions of the proposed AVA, but ``it is not impossible
to achieve a level of ripeness that would enable a producer to produce
a sparkling wine from this less-ripe fruit.'' Comment 67, submitted by
the petitioner, also states that the coastline was used for simplicity.
The comment goes on to say that removing all the public and protected
lands from the proposed AVA would also have created an unnecessarily
complicated boundary. The petitioner notes that TTB has established
AVAs that include publicly-owned lands in order to avoid creating
boundaries that are cumbersome to describe and difficult to administer.
As evidence, he cites the Malibu Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.235), where 37
percent of the land within the AVA is administered by the Federal
Government or the State of California.
Comment 67 also addresses comment 51's discussion of the
discrepancies between the written boundary description and the boundary
drawn on the USGS maps. The petitioner believes that the commenters may
have relied upon copies of the USGS maps that were included as Exhibit
A to the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA petition. The petitioner notes,
however, that he worked in consultation with TTB to make ``modest
adjustments'' to the proposed boundaries to provide better clarity and
simplification to the boundary description. These consultations took
place in January of 2017, and as a result, the boundary description
included in the proposed rule would not exactly match the original
boundaries drawn on the USGS maps at the time the commenters may have
viewed them. The petitioner states that any typographic errors
appearing in the boundary description of the proposed rule may be
corrected as needed, but they ``do not otherwise discredit the
integrity of the proposed boundary.''
The petitioner also explains why the proposed AVA boundary does not
include the region referred to in comment 51 as the ``Excluded
Corridor.'' He claims that his field review of the region around
Annapolis found a noticeable shift in vegetation approximately 8 miles
inland from the coast. He explains that such a shift in vegetation
signals a difference in climate and possibly soils. Therefore, even
though the terrain of the Exclusion Corridor resembles that of the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, the change in vegetation strongly
suggests the region does not share the same climate or underlying
geology as the proposed AVA and should not be included.
In comment 67, the petitioner then addresses why the proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA boundary does not include certain regions that were
previously described in various West Sonoma Coast Vintners publications
as being within the ``West Sonoma Coast.'' The petitioner explains that
when the West Sonoma Coast Vintners association was first formed, it
was ``originally concerned with discerning the coolest regions of the
west Sonoma Coast AVA from the greater Sonoma Coast AVA.'' The Green
Valley of Russian River AVA, the Sebastopol Hills region, and a portion
of the Petaluma Gap AVA were all considered to be cooler than the
regions of the Sonoma Coast AVA that are farther inland and were
included in the association's early maps of the ``West Sonoma Coast.''
Over time, and after consultation with AVA experts, the group
determined that the extreme coastal mountains are unique from the
milder topography of the Petaluma Gap and Green Valley of Russian River
Valley AVAs, and also the Sebastopol Hills region. As a result, these
regions ultimately were not included in the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA boundary that was submitted to TTB.
iii. TTB Response
After careful review of the petition and comments, TTB has
determined that the boundary as it was described in Notice No. 177,
with the addition of the Walala Vineyard as requested in comment 55, is
appropriate and shall be maintained.
TTB does not believe that the coastline and all public and
protected lands need to be removed from the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA. To do so would create an unnecessarily complex boundary that would
be difficult to describe and to administer. Although TTB's AVA Manual
for Petitioners does recommend removing public lands or lands otherwise
unavailable for commercial viticulture, it does not require it. TTB
typically does not request the removal of these lands unless they may
be easily excluded without creating holes within the interior of the
proposed AVA or an overly complex boundary description. Examples of
established AVAs whose petitions specifically mention that the AVAs
contain public lands include Upper Hiwassee Highlands (27 CFR 9.234)
and Malibu Coast (27 CFR 9.235).
TTB does not agree with comment 51 that the exclusion of the town
of Fort Ross from the established Fort Ross-Seaview AVA set a precedent
for removing all coastal lands from AVAs. TTB has established many AVAs
whose boundaries include a coastline, including the North Coast and
Sonoma Coast AVAs, as well as the Martha's Vineyard (27 CFR 9.73), Long
Island (27 CFR 9.170), Outer Coastal Plain (27 CFR 9.207), and Tip of
the Mitt (27 CFR 9.257) AVAs. TTB notes that the town of Fort Ross was
not included in the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA because one of the key
features of the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA is elevations above 900 feet; the
town of Fort Ross is located at lower elevations. Therefore, excluding
a town with lower elevations from an AVA that is primarily
characterized by elevations above 900 feet is appropriate, especially
when removing the town from the AVA would not create a hole in the
interior of the AVA. In addition, the exclusion of Fort Ross from the
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA did not preclude TTB from including both the town
and the AVA in the established Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs, which
are larger, regional AVAs with broad characteristics that both the town
and the AVA share.
TTB acknowledges that the proposed boundary description for the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA that was included in Notice No. 177 is
different from the description contained in the petition and originally
shown on the USGS maps. TTB regularly works with petitioners to ensure
that the boundary description meets TTB requirements and is described
and defined as clearly as possible. When TTB accepts a petition as
``perfected,'' that simply means an initial review of the petition
finds that it contains sufficient evidence to meet the regulatory
requirements. However, TTB's acceptance of a ``perfected'' petition
does not mean that TTB will not ask for additional information or edits
to clarify the information or proposed boundary in the petition before
publishing a proposed rule. TTB acknowledges that there are some minor
typographic errors in the boundary description in Notice No. 177,
particularly in paragraphs (c)(2), (14), (15), (21), and (24). These
errors have been corrected in the boundary description at the end of
this document.
[[Page 31176]]
With respect to the ``Excluded Corridor'' referred to in comment
51, TTB believes that the petition, along with the information provided
by the petitioner in comment 67, provides a sufficient rationale for
not including this region in the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. East
of the proposed northeastern boundary, the climate is not affected by
the heaviest marine influence and transitions entirely to the Coastal
Cool zone and then to the Coastal Warm zone.
TTB does not agree with the assertion in comment 51 that the
proposed AVA boundary is arbitrarily drawn and does not comply with the
requirements of Sec. 9.12(a)(2) of the TTB regulations. The petition
included evidence that topography, climate, and geology are different
outside the boundary of the proposed AVA. The petition also included
evidence to demonstrate those regions of Sonoma County that are
considered to be in the ``West Sonoma Coast,'' and the proposed
boundary does not include regions that are not known by that name.
TTB does not believe that the West Sonoma Coast Vintners' changing
definition of what defines the ``West Sonoma Coast'' demonstrates that
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA boundaries are arbitrarily drawn.
TTB agrees with the petitioner's assertion in comment 67 that the
association refined over the years what it considered to be the key
factors of the region--namely, mountainous terrain with heavy marine
influence. Therefore, it is not inappropriate that the boundary that
was proposed for a West Sonoma Coast AVA differs from what the
association originally envisioned.
TTB also does not agree that the historical publications of the
West Sonoma Coast Vintners are attempts by the association to mislead
or deceive TTB or the public or to violate the requirements of Sec.
4.39(a)(1) of the TTB regulations, as suggested in comment 51. The TTB
regulations do not prohibit the region known by a proposed AVA name to
be larger than the area included in the AVA. The regulations also do
not prohibit an association from accepting members who are not within
the boundaries of the AVA. However, TTB does note that wines produced
primarily from grapes grown outside the AVA would not be allowed to be
labeled with the AVA name or to be marketed as coming from within the
AVA.
As previously mentioned, TTB is modifying the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA boundary to include the Walala Vineyard, which is just east
of the Annapolis region of the proposed AVA. Comment 55, which requests
including Walala Vineyard in the proposed AVA, provided information on
the climate, elevations, slope angle, and geology of the Walala
Vineyard. The Walala Vineyard climate data was compared to the climate
of the Goldrock Vineyard, located within both the proposed AVA and the
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, and to Windsor, which was the inland comparison
location used in the proposed AVA petition. The data suggests that the
mean growing season temperatures within the Walala Vineyard are very
similar to those in the Goldrock Vineyard and cooler than those in
Windsor. The data also suggests that minimum temperatures within the
Walala Vineyard are higher than those in Windsor; minimum temperature
data was not included for the Goldrock Vineyard. These climate findings
are similar to those included in the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
petition, which indicate cooler maximum and warmer minimum temperatures
within the proposed AVA than are found in the inland regions to the
east. Comment 55 also described the average elevation within the Walala
Vineyard as 1,150 feet, which is within the range of elevations
included in the proposed AVA and higher than the average elevation of
the Santa Rosa Plain, within the Russian River Valley AVA. The comment
also provided a map of slope angles that indicates the Walala Vineyard
has slope angles similar to those in the Annapolis region of the
proposed AVA, which is adjacent to the Walala Vineyard.\37\ Finally,
the comment included a geologic maps of the vineyard and the Annapolis
region, which indicates that the vineyard is located on the Franciscan
Formation \38\ and has soils derived from weathered sedimentary
rock,\39\ similar to the proposed AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Figure 10 to comment 55 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\38\ See Figure 11 of comment 55 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\39\ See Figure 13 of comment 55 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to an inquiry from TTB, Mr. Shabram provided an email
indicating that the board of directors of the West Sonoma Coast
Vintners voted unanimously to expand the proposed AVA boundary to
include Walala Vineyard. Because of the evidence included in comment
55, TTB is modifying the boundary of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
to include the Walala Vineyard.
7. FAA Act and TTB Regulations
i. Opposing Comments
Comment 51 asserts that establishing the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA would be an ``arbitrary and capricious'' decision ``inconsistent
with the purposes of the FAA Act and [TTB] Regulations'' and ``contrary
to the public interest.'' The comment first notes that the Federal
Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) ``prohibit[s] consumer deception
and the use of misleading statements'' on wine labels. The comment then
states that TTB regulations in Sec. 4.39 prohibit wine labels from
containing ``[a]ny statement that is false or untrue in any
particular'' or creates a ``misleading impression.'' Furthermore, the
comment claims that the petition contains ``a number of factual errors,
unverified and incomplete or illegible documents, data, charts, and
maps'' and cannot be considered ``true and correct.'' For these
reasons, the comment claims that allowing wine to be labeled as ``West
Sonoma Coast'' would mislead consumers by falsely attributing ``common
quality, reputation, and characteristics'' to wine made from grapes
grown in an AVA comprised of regions with ``dissimilar climates,
geology, physical features and maximum and minimum elevations.''
ii. Supporting Comments
TTB did not receive any comments specifically addressing the
comment's claims that establishing the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
would be arbitrary and capricious, and inconsistent with the FAA Act or
TTB regulations. However, TTB did receive 20 comments that express the
belief that the proposed AVA would provide more information to
consumers and help them distinguish coastal wines from wines made from
grape grown farther inland. As discussed earlier in this document, TTB
also received numerous comments supporting the petition's claim that
the various regions within the proposed AVA contain similar
distinguishing features that distinguish the proposed AVA from the
larger established Sonoma Coast AVA.
iii. TTB Response
TTB has carefully reviewed the information in the petition and in
the comments received in response to Notice No. 177, including the
information in comment 51. TTB believes that the information in comment
51 and in other opposing comments does not conclusively demonstrate
that all the information in the petition is false, misleading, or
[[Page 31177]]
erroneous. Based on information provided in comment 51, TTB has re-
evaluated its determination that wind speeds distinguish the proposed
AVA from the region to the east. However, as discussed earlier in this
document, TTB still believes the petition provided sufficient
information to meet the regulatory requirements for an AVA petition;
namely, the petition provided name evidence, a delineated boundary, and
evidence that the various regions within the AVA share similar features
that are distinguishable from the surrounding regions and affect
viticulture. Therefore, TTB does not believe that establishing the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA would be an arbitrary and capricious
decision inconsistent with the FAA Act or TTB regulations, nor does TTB
believe that allowing wines to be labeled with ``West Sonoma Coast'' as
an appellation of origin would mislead the public.
B. Comments on Inclusion of Fort Ross-Seaview AVA
Twenty-one comments specifically mentioned the proposal to include
the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
Ten comments opposed the inclusion, while 11 comments supported it. Six
of the supporting comments and three of the opposing comments were
submitted by wine industry members who specifically indicated
affiliations with wineries or vineyards within the Fort Ross-Seaview
AVA.
Several of the comments simply expressed opposition or support with
a general statement that the characteristics of the established AVA
were either similar to or different from the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA. However, other comments mentioned specific reasons for opposing or
supporting the proposed AVA. Those specific reasons will be discussed
in the following sections.
1. Reputation of Fort Ross-Seaview AVA.
i. Opposing Comments
Five comments express the belief that the reputation of the Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA would be harmed if it were included in the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA. Four of these comments were submitted by wine
industry members who claim an affiliation with vineyards or wineries
within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA (comments 44, 48, and 51). The
opposing comments generally claim that the characteristics of the Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA would be ``watered down'' (comment 48) if it were
included, and that ``the elements that make Fort Ross-Seaview so unique
would be lost in this change'' (comment 41). The result would be
``quite confusing to consumers,'' (comment 44) who would no longer know
what to expect from wines labeled with the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA. This
consumer confusion could lead to ``incalculable damage'' for winemakers
and grape growers within the AVA (comment 51).
ii. Supporting Comments
Six of the comments disagree with the idea that the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA would be diminished or devalued if it was included in the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. Four of these comments were submitted
by wine industry members who claim an affiliation with vineyards or
wineries within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA (comments 31, 34, 63, and
66). Comment 31 believes that the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA are ``harmonious and complementary,''
and that including the established AVA in the proposed AVA will help
customers ``distinguish wines from the coast'' of Sonoma County. The
commenter also notes that her vineyard, Hirsch Vineyards ``are strong
proponents of the Fort Ross Seaview AVA, and helped foster its
creation.'' The winemaker of Alma Fria Wines submitted two comments
(comments 34 and 66) that support including the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA
in the proposed AVA. In comment 34, he expressed his belief that
including the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA in the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA would ``help bring clarity to consumers'' because wines from the
proposed AVA ``have much in common with each other and very little in
common with wines from other areas'' of the larger Sonoma Coast AVA. In
comment 66, he states that both the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and the
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA are ``supported by the facts and can co-
exist without impacting each other.'' Comment 63, submitted jointly by
six wineries and vineyards within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, believes
that ``growers, winemakers, wine writers, other wine professionals, and
many consumers recognize the similarities between the Fort Ross-Seaview
AVA and the greater West Sonoma Coast'' and that ``[t]hese similarities
set the entire West Sonoma Coast region apart from the greater Sonoma
Coast AVA including the Russian River Valley and Petaluma Gap AVAs.''
Comment 59 uses the example of the AVAs located within the Napa
Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.23) to illustrate the belief that inclusion in the
proposed AVA would not harm the reputation of the Fort Ross-Seaview
AVA. The comment notes that, while there are ``significant
distinctions'' between each of the smaller AVAs within Napa Valley,
they all share the overarching characteristics of the ``long
established and much appreciated Napa Valley AVA.'' The comment also
notes the lack of petitions requesting the removal of the smaller AVAs
from the Napa Valley AVA, and suggests this demonstrates that the Napa
Valley AVA and the smaller AVAs within it benefit from each other, as
the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA would
benefit from each other.
Comment 61, from the sales director of a vineyard located within
the Napa Valley AVA, also compares the inclusion of the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA in the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA to the smaller AVAs
located within the Napa Valley AVA. He claims that, although the Napa
Valley AVA name is ``the most valuable designation in American
viticulture,'' the appellation does not ``diminish the usefulness of
distinguishing wines'' made within the smaller nested AVAs. The comment
concludes that the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA is ``undoubtedly as Western
Sonoma and as coastal as Rutherford [AVA] and Oakville [AVA] are Napa
Valley [AVA].''
iii. TTB Response
After careful review of the petition and comments, TTB believes
that, although it has unique features, the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA still
shares the broad distinguishing characteristics of the proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA. In particular, both regions have steep mountainous
terrain, sedimentary soil, and a maritime-influenced climate that is
generally cooler during the day and warmer during the night than the
more inland regions of Sonoma County. Because both regions share these
similarities, TTB does not believe that including the Fort Ross-Seaview
AVA within the proposed AVA would mislead consumers. Furthermore,
establishment of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA would not require
winemakers to discontinue use of the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA name or to
adopt the West Sonoma Coast AVA name. Such decisions would be entirely
up to the individual proprietors.
TTB also does not find that the commenters provided evidence to
support their claims that the reputation of the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA
would be harmed by the establishment of the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA, or that the inclusion of an established AVA
[[Page 31178]]
within a larger AVA would be detrimental to the smaller AVA's image.
TTB notes that many well-known AVAs are located within other AVAs,
including the Arroyo Seco (27 CFR 9.59), Sta. Rita Hills (27 CFR
9.162), Red Mountain (27 CFR 9.167), Yakima Valley (27 CFR 9.69), and
Eola-Amity Hills (27 CFR 9.202) AVAs. The reputation of an AVA and 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.
2. Previous TTB Rulings
i. Opposing Comments
Three comments oppose including the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA in the
proposed AVA because they believe doing so would contradict previous
TTB rulings, specifically T.D. TTB-98, which established the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA. Only one of these comments (comment 51) was from a wine
industry member located within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA.
Comment 38 notes that T.D. TTB-98 established the Fort Ross-Seaview
based on its unique climate and geology. The commenter asserts that
including it ``as part of a larger area simply confuses that prior
designation without any evidence that the prior AVA's boundaries were
mistakenly restrictive.'' Comments 51 and 52 both cite TTB's decision
in T.D. TTB-98 not to include the region near Annapolis in the Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA. According to these two comments, TTB's decision
demonstrates that the two regions are too dissimilar to be included in
a single AVA. Comment 51 also asserts that TTB's initial acceptance of
a petition to establish a Freestone-Occidental AVA in 2008 further
demonstrates that the region of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
which includes Freestone and Occidental is a distinct region that
should not be included in an AVA that also includes the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA. To include the Fort Ross-Seaview in a single AVA that
contains such different regions would, according to comment 51, be
``requesting TTB to create a new type of hybrid AVA.''
Comment 51 also asserts that, by establishing the Fort Ross-Seaview
AVA, TTB has already determined that it is ``viticulturally
distinguishable'' from the surrounding regions. Therefore, including it
in the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA would ``undermine the credibility
and the integrity of the AVA system,'' as well as negate the findings
of T.D. TTB-98. First, the comment states that rainfall is
substantially higher in the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA than in the
Annapolis, Freestone, and Occidental regions of the proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA. The comment also states that T.D. TTB-98 determined
that the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA was in the Coastal Cool zone, not the
Marine zone, and is therefore not as influenced by marine fog as other
regions in the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. Elevations within the
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA are above the fog line, allowing greater solar
radiation exposure and warmer daytime temperatures than are generally
found within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. The comment cites the
exclusion of the Santa Cruz Mountains AVA (27 CFR 9.31) from both the
larger San Francisco Bay AVA (27 CFR 9.157) and Central Coast AVA (27
CFR 9.75) as an example of an instance where a smaller AVA was
determined to be too distinct to be included in a larger overlapping
AVA.
ii. Supporting Comments
Comment 67, submitted by the petitioner, was the only comment to
address how the inclusion of the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA in the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA would affect TTB's determination in T.D. TTB-98.
In comment 67, the petitioner responds to the reasons cited in
comment 51 to exclude the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA from the proposed AVA.
He first states that the proposed AVA petition is not an effort ``to
apply the characteristics that define the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA to the
entire West Sonoma Coast region,'' and that the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA is not defined by all of the same distinguishing criteria as
the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA. Referencing a 2010 letter submitted to TTB
during the rulemaking process that led to the creation of the Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA, the petitioner notes that the Fort Ross-Seaview is a
``local wine growing area,'' while the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
is a ``regional viticultural area'' which may encompass smaller, more
localized AVAs. Establishing the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, he
claims, would have no impact on the continued existence of the Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA.
The petitioner also shows that the exclusion of the Annapolis
region from the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA does not preclude the two regions
from being included in a larger, regional AVA. He states that including
the Annapolis region in the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA in T.D. TTB-98 would
not have been appropriate because the primary feature of the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA was a location that was generally above the fog line. The
Annapolis region did not meet this criteria, nor did the name ``Fort
Ross-Seaview'' apply to the Annapolis region. He states that, for these
reasons, the Annapolis region did not belong in the Fort Ross-Seaview
AVA. However, including both regions in a larger coastal AVA that also
includes other coastal regions of Sonoma County would be appropriate
because the regions all share the broad characteristics of the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA, such as sedimentary soils, a marine-influenced
climate, and steep coastal ridges.
iii. TTB Response
After reviewing the petition and the comments, TTB does not believe
that including the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA within the proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA would be inconsistent with the findings of T.D. TTB-
98, which established the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA. TTB believes it is
appropriate to include the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA within the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA, as the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA shares the
mountainous topography and marine-influenced climate of the surrounding
regions. T.D. TTB-98 describes the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA as having
steep, mountainous terrain, soils derived from sedimentary rock, and
temperatures that are moderated by the convection and conduction of fog
from the Pacific Ocean. These distinguishing features are similar to
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, which is described in TTB Notice
No. 177 as containing steep, rugged mountains and ridgelines, soils
derived from the sedimentary rock of the Franciscan Complex, and a
climate influenced by the cold marine air and heavy marine fog from the
Pacific Ocean. Further, while Comment 51 notes the Fort Ross-Seaview
AVA is distinguished by elevations that are generally above the fog
line, T.D. TTB-98 does show that vineyards in the AVA benefit from
being near the fog line. T.D. TTB-98 states that the Fort-Ross Seaview
AVA is ``in the heaviest fog intrusion area,'' and the vineyards still
receive ``some cooling via conduction due to the close proximity of the
fog layer.'' Last, while Comment 51 asserts rainfall amounts in the
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA may differ from those in the rest of the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA, TTB notes that rainfall amounts were not
determined to be a distinguishing feature of either the proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA, as described in Notice No. 177, or the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA, as described in T.D. TTB-98.
TTB also disagrees that including the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA within
a larger
[[Page 31179]]
AVA would create a ``new hybrid type of AVA,'' as asserted in comment
51. TTB regulations allow for the creation of smaller AVAs within
larger AVAs, as well as the creation of larger AVAs that encompass one
or more smaller AVAs. TTB and its predecessor agency, ATF, have both
established numerous AVAs that are within or contain other AVAs, and
TTB believes that consumers and industry members generally understand
and accept the concept of these so-called ``nested'' AVAs. TTB notes
that the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA is already within the established Sonoma
Coast AVA and the North Coast AVA. Also, as discussed above, TTB notes
the examples of the Arroyo Seco, Sta. Rita Hills, Red Mountain, Yakima
Valley, and Eola-Amity Hills AVAs, which are all located within other
larger established AVAs.
TTB also does not believe that either the decision to exclude the
Annapolis region from the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA in T.D. TTB-98 or the
previous attempt to establish a Freestone-Occidental AVA means that the
two regions are too dissimilar to be included along with the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA in a single new West Sonoma Coast AVA. As stated in comment
67, the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA encompasses a very localized microclimate
within the larger established Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs. The
characteristics of the Annapolis region were determined to be too
distinctive to be a part of the same limited Fort Ross-Seaview AVA
microclimate. Additionally, TTB found that the ``Fort Ross-Seaview''
name did not apply to the Annapolis region. However, the proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA represents the more regional microclimate found
throughout the extreme coastal regions of Sonoma County. Although the
Freestone-Occidental and Annapolis regions and the Fort Ross-Seaview
AVA each have some unique features, they all share the characteristics
of this larger regional microclimate.
3. Name Recognition
i. Opposing Comments
Comment 51 states that the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA should not be
included in the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA because ``the smaller
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA has name recognition that clearly distinguishes
it'' from the proposed AVA. The comment also asserts that the proposed
West Sonoma Coast AVA petition did not state or explain ``why the name
West Sonoma Coast is applicable or appropriate for the existing
approved Fort Ross-Seaview AVA which * * * has not itself even been
known as the West Sonoma Coast AVA.'' The comment included multiple
images of wine bottles bearing ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' as an appellation
of origin, as well as links to images and maps depicting the Fort Ross-
Seaview AVA. The comment also notes that the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA has
its own page on the Sonoma County Tourism Bureau website \40\ and is
identified ``as a prominent and clearly delimited AVA'' on a map of
Sonoma County AVAs on the Sonoma County Winegrowers Association
website.\41\ Finally, comment 51 states that there have been ``a number
of education and promotional seminars'' exclusively about the Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA, including two separate seminars entitled ``Pinot''
and ``Diamonds in the Sky,'' which were both held in 2016. The
commenter suggests that these seminars further demonstrate that the
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA is recognized independently of the proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ <a href="https://www.sonomacounty.com/articles/fort-ross-seaview-wine-region-and-appellation">https://www.sonomacounty.com/articles/fort-ross-seaview-wine-region-and-appellation</a>.
\41\ <a href="https://sonomawinegrape.org/about/sonoma-county-terroir">https://sonomawinegrape.org/about/sonoma-county-terroir</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Supporting Comments
Comment 67, submitted by the petitioner, was the only supporting
comment to address the applicability of the proposed West Sonoma Coast
AVA name to the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA. The petitioner notes that
several vineyards and wineries within the Fort Ross-Seaview also
identify themselves as being in a region known as ``West Sonoma
Coast.'' For example, the Hirsch Vineyards website states, ``The Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA was granted official status in 2012, although the
oldest plantings, including Hirsch, date from the 1970s, making it the
oldest grape-growing region on the West Sonoma Coast.'' \42\ The Red
Car Wines website states, ``The coastal ridgetop vineyards in the West
Sonoma Coast are situated in one of the most dramatically beautiful
places in California.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ <a href="https://www.hirschvineyards.com/The-Site/West-Sonoma-Coast">https://www.hirschvineyards.com/The-Site/West-Sonoma-Coast</a>.
\43\ <a href="https://redcarwine.com/">https://redcarwine.com/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 67 also states that several wineries and vineyards within
the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA are members of the West Sonoma Coast
Vintners, indicating that they also choose to associate their
businesses with the region known as ``West Sonoma Coast.'' Members
include Failla Wines, Flowers Winery & Vineyards, Hirsch Vineyards, Red
Car Wines, and Wayfarer. Comment 67 also notes that Fort Ross Vineyards
was a member of the association until 2018. Finally, the comment notes
that the 2018 West of the West Festival, which celebrates wines from
the West Sonoma Coast region, featured wines from Failla Wines, Flowers
Vineyards & Winery, Fort Ross Vineyards, Hirsch Vineyards, Red Car
Wines, and Wayfarer, which are all located within the Fort Ross-Seaview
AVA. The petitioner therefore illustrates the ``West Sonoma Coast''
name includes wineries and vineyards within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA.
However, he continues by saying, ``Given the widespread usage of the
name Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, as presented by Mr. Schwartz and Mr.
Schoenfeld [in comment 51], there should be little concern that the
West Sonoma Coast AVA would have any impact on the recognition of Fort
Ross-Seaview as a place of wine origin.''
iii. TTB Response
After reviewing the comments, TTB agrees that there is widespread
recognition of the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA name. However, TTB also
believes the petition and the additional information provided by
petitioner in comment 67 demonstrate there is sufficient evidence that
the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA is considered to be within a larger region
known as the ``West Sonoma Coast.'' Therefore, TTB does not believe it
would be misleading or inappropriate to allow winemakers in the Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA the option of labeling and marketing their wines using
``West Sonoma Coast'' as an appellation of origin.
TTB notes that establishment of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA
would not prevent any label holder from using ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' as
an appellation of origin on their wines, nor would they be required to
use ``West Sonoma Coast'' as an appellation of origin. However,
winemakers in the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA would have the option of using
the West Sonoma Coast AVA name on their labels and marketing material,
just as they currently have the option to use ``Sonoma Coast'' or
``North Coast.'' Additionally, wine makers and grape growers within the
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA could continue to have a separate association for
its industry members, as well as have separate festivals, seminars, and
promotional events related to the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA.
IV. TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition and the comments received in
response to Notice No. 177, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the
petitioner supports the establishment of the West Sonoma Coast AVA.
Notwithstanding the arguments of those who oppose the
[[Page 31180]]
AVA, the petitioners' request for approval of the proposed West Sonoma
Coast AVA satisfied all of the regulatory criteria needed for the
approval of a new AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act,
section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9
of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the ``West Sonoma Coast'' AVA
in Sonoma County, California, effective 30 days from the publication
date of this document.
TTB has also determined that the West Sonoma Coast AVA will remain
part of the established Sonoma Coast AVA and North Coast AVA. As
discussed in Notice No. 177, the West Sonoma Coast AVA shares some
broad characteristics with the both established AVAs. For example, all
three AVAs have temperatures that are moderated by marine air and fog.
However, the West Sonoma Coast AVA is located within the portion of
Sonoma County that experiences the highest degree of maritime
influence. Additionally, because it is a smaller region, the West
Sonoma Coast AVA is more uniform in its soils and topography than both
the larger Sonoma Coast AVA and the multi-county North Coast AVA.
Finally, TTB has determined that the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA will
remain a part of the West Sonoma Coast AVA because the two AVAs share a
similar geology, topography, and maritime-influenced climate. The Fort
Ross-Seaview AVA is still distinguishable from the West Sonoma Coast
AVA because its elevations are primarily above the fog line, whereas
the West Sonoma Coast AVA also contains elevations within and below the
fog line. However, the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA still benefits from the
cooling influence of the marine fog and breezes, as does the West
Sonoma Coast AVA.
V. Boundary Description
See the narrative description of the boundary of the West Sonoma
Coast AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final
rule.
VI. Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the regulatory text. You may also view the West Sonoma Coast
AVA boundary on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website, at <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer</a>.
VII. 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 or with a
brand name that includes 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 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 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
With the establishment of this AVA, its name, ``West Sonoma Coast''
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
regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the
name ``West Sonoma Coast'' in a brand name, including a trademark, or
in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to
ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an
appellation of origin. TTB notes that the term ``Sonoma Coast'' already
has viticultural significance as it is the name of an established AVA.
However, because the West Sonoma Coast AVA is located within the Sonoma
Coast AVA, the establishment of this new AVA will have no effect on the
use of the term ``Sonoma Coast'' on wine labels.
The establishment of the West Sonoma Coast AVA will not affect any
existing AVA, and any bottlers using ``North Coast,'' ``Sonoma Coast,''
or ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name
for wines made from grapes grown within these AVAs will not be affected
by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the West
Sonoma Coast AVA will allow vintners to use ``West Sonoma Coast,''
``Sonoma Coast,'' and ``North Coast'' as appellations of origin for
wines made primarily from grapes grown within the West Sonoma Coast AVA
if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
Additionally, any bottlers using ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' as an
appellation of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown in the
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA will be able to use ``Fort Ross-Seaview,''
``Sonoma Coast,'' ``North Coast,'' and ``West Sonoma Coast'' as
appellations of origin of their wines.
Bottlers who wish to label their wines with ``West Sonoma Coast''
as an appellation of origin must obtain a new Certificate of Label
Approval (COLA) for the label, even if the currently approved label
already contains another AVA appellation of origin. Please do not
submit COLA requests to TTB before the date shown in the DATES section
of this document or your request will be rejected.
VIII. Regulatory Analysis and Notices
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA
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.
B. Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
IX. Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this final rule.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends 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. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.283 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.283 West Sonoma Coast.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``West Sonoma Coast''. For purposes of part 4 of this
chapter, ``West Sonoma Coast'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The 14 United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
West
[[Page 31181]]
Sonoma Coast viticultural area are titled:
(1) McGuire Ridge, California, 1991 (provisional edition);
(2) Stewarts Point, California, 1978;
(3) Annapolis, California, 1977;
(4) Tombs Creek, California, 1978;
(5) Fort Ross, California, 1998;
(6) Cazadero, California, 1998;
(7) Duncans Mills, California, 1979;
(8) Camp Meeker, California, 1995;
(9) Valley Ford, California, 1954; photorevised 1971;
(10) Two Rock, California, 1954; photorevised 1971;
(11) Bodega Head, California, 1972;
(12) Arched Rock, California, 1977;
(13) Plantation, California, 1977; and
(14) Gualala, California, 1998.
(c) Boundary. The West Sonoma Coast viticultural area is located in
Sonoma County, California. The boundary of the West Sonoma Coast
viticultural area is as described as follows:
(1) The beginning point is on the McGuire Ridge map at the
intersection of the Sonoma County/Mendocino County boundary and the
northwest corner of section 29, T11N/R14W. From the beginning point,
proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.4 mile to an unnamed hilltop
with a marked elevation of 820 feet in section 29, T11N/R14W; then
(2) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 1.4 miles to the
intersection of the eastern boundary of section 32 and the 800-foot
elevation contour, T11N/R14W; then
(3) Proceed southeast along the 800-foot elevation contour for 3.1
miles, crossing onto the Stewarts Point map, to its intersection with
the northern boundary of section 3, T10N/R14W; then
(4) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 3 and then
along the northern boundary of section 2 for a total of 0.8 mile to the
intersection of the northern boundary of section 2 and the 600-foot
elevation contour, T10N, R14W; then
(5) Proceed generally southeast along the 600-foot elevation
contour for 3.3 miles, crossing onto the Annapolis map, to its
intersection with the northern boundary of section 12, T10N/R14W; then
(6) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 12, T10N/
R14W, for 0.1 mile to its intersection with the 600-foot elevation
contour; then
(7) Proceed north then generally east along the meandering 600-foot
elevation contour for 4.8 miles to its sixth intersection with the
northern boundary of section 7, T10N/R13W; then
(8) Continue northeasterly along the 600-ft elevation contour for
an additional 3 miles to its intersection with Springs Creek in section
5, T10N/R13W; then
(9) Proceed southeasterly along Springs Creek for 1 mile to its
intersection with the northern boundary of section 9, T10N/R13W; then
(10) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 9 for 0.42
mile to its intersection with an unnamed, intermittent tributary of
Grasshopper Creek; then
(11) Proceed southwest along the unnamed, intermittent tributary of
Grasshopper Creek for 0.63 mile to its intersection with the main stem
of Grasshopper Creek in section 9, T10N/R13W; then
(12) Proceed generally west along the main stem of Grasshopper
Creek to its intersection with the eastern boundary of section 7, T10N/
R13W; then
(13) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of section 7 for 0.17
mile; then
(14) Proceed in a straight line southeast for 1.6 miles to the
intersection of the eastern boundary of section 17, T10N/R13W, and the
800-foot elevation contour; then
(15) Proceed southeast along the 800-foot elevation contour for 2.6
miles to its intersection with an unnamed, unimproved road near the
862-foot benchmark in section 21, T10N/R13W; then
(16) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.2 mile to the
intersection of the 600-foot elevation contour and an intermittent
stream in section 28, T10N/R13W; then
(17) Proceed south along the 600-foot elevation contour for 1.7
miles to its intersection with the eastern boundary of section 33,
T10N/R13W; then
(18) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the
intersection of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Skaggs
Springs Road and an unnamed, unimproved road near the Mendosoma Fire
Station in section 34, T10N/R13W; then
(19) Proceed southeast along the unnamed, unimproved road for total
of 5.9 miles as it follows Skyline Ridge and crosses onto the Tombs
Creek map, back onto the Annapolis map, then back on to the Tombs Creek
map, to the second intersection of the road with the 1,200-foot
elevation contour in section 13, T9N/R13W; then
(20) Proceed southeast along the 1,200-foot elevation contour for
0.6 mile to the intersection with Allen Creek in section 18, T9N/R12W;
then
(21) Proceed north along Allen Creek for 0.2 mile to the
intersection with the 920-foot elevation contour in section 18, T9N/
R12W; then
(22) Proceed east and then southeast along the meandering 920-foot
elevation contour, crossing onto the Fort Ross map, then onto the Tombs
Creek map, and then back onto the Fort Ross map, to the intersection of
the elevation contour with Jim Creek in section 21, T9N/R12W; then
(23) Proceed southeast along Jim Creek for 0.7 mile to the
intersection of the creek with the northern boundary of section 27,
T9N, R12W; then
(24) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 27 for 0.5
mile to the northeast corner of section 27; then
(25) Proceed south along the eastern boundaries of sections 27, 34,
3, 10, 15, and 22 for 5.1 miles to the intersection of the eastern
boundary of section 22 and Fort Ross Road, T9N/R12W; then
(26) Proceed east along Fort Ross Road for approximately 262 feet
to the intersection of the road with the middle branch of Russian Gulch
Creek in section 23, T8N/R12W; then
(27) Proceed south along the middle branch of Russian Gulch Creek
for 1.2 miles to the intersection with the 920-foot elevation contour
in section 26, T8N/R12W; then
(28) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 2 miles, crossing
onto the Cazadero map, to the summit of Pole Mountain in section 30,
T8N/R11W; then
(29) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 4.7 miles, crossing
onto the Duncans Mills map, to the confluence of Austin Creek and the
Russian River, T7N/R11W; then
(30) Proceed generally east (upstream) along the Russian River for
3.1 miles to the intersection of the Russian River and the Bohemian
Highway in section 7, T7N/R10W; then
(31) Proceed southeast along the Bohemian Highway for a total of
10.1 miles, crossing onto the Camp Meeker map and through the towns of
Camp Meeker and Occidental, then crossing onto the Valley Ford map and
through the town of Freestone, to the intersection of the Bohemian
Highway and an unnamed medium-duty road known locally as Bodega Road
near benchmark (BM) 214 in section 12, T6N/R10W; then
(32) Proceed northeast along Bodega Road for 0.9 mile, crossing
onto the Camp Meeker map, to the intersection of the road with an
unnamed light-duty road known locally as Barnett Valley Road north of
the marked 486-foot elevation point in the Ca[ntilde]ada de Jonive land
grant, T6N/R10W; then
(33) Proceed south then east along Barnett Valley Road for 2.2
miles, crossing onto the Valley Ford map and then onto the Two Rock
map, to the
[[Page 31182]]
intersection of Bennett Valley Road with Burnside Road in section 17,
T6N/R9W; then
(34) Proceed southeast along Burnside Road for 3.2 miles to its
intersection with the 400-foot elevation contour just north of an
unnamed light duty road known locally as Bloomfield Road in the
Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T5N/R9W; then
(35) Proceed west along the 400-foot elevation contour for 6.7
miles, crossing onto the Valley Ford map, to the intersection of the
elevation contour with an unimproved road, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi
land grant, T6N/R9W; then
(36) Proceed northwest then southwest along the unnamed, unimproved
road for 0.9 mile to its terminus, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land
grant, T6N/R9W; then
(37) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 0.1 mile to the
marked 448-foot summit of an unnamed hilltop, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi
land grant, T6N/R10W; then
(38) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the 61-
foot benchmark along an unnamed secondary highway known locally as
Freestone Valley Ford Road, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/
R10W; then
(39) Proceed west-northwest in a straight line for 0.8 mile to VABM
724 in the Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then
(40) Proceed west in a straight line for 1.0 mile to the
intersection of Salmon Creek and an intermittent stream, Estero
Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then
(41) Proceed west (downstream) along Salmon Creek for 9.6 miles,
crossing onto the Bodega Head map, to the mouth of the creek at the
Pacific Ocean; then
(42) Proceed north along the Pacific coastline for 51.4 miles,
crossing over the Duncan Mills, Arched Rock, Fort Ross, Plantation, and
Stewarts Point maps and onto the Gualala map to the intersection of the
coastline with the Sonoma County/Mendocino County line; then
(43) Proceed east along the Sonoma County/Mendocino County line for
5.6 miles, crossing onto the McGuire Ridge map, and returning to the
beginning point, T11N, R14W.
Signed: May 11, 2022.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: May 11, 2022.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2022-10590 Filed 5-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 23, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.