Proposed Fort Ross-Seaview Viticultural Area (2003R-191T), 11174-11178 [05-4390]

Agencies

• Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
• DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11174-11178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4390]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 34]
RIN 1513-AA64


Proposed Fort Ross-Seaview Viticultural Area (2003R-191T)

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to 
establish the 27,500-acre Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area in 
western Sonoma County, California. We designate viticultural areas to 
allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to 
allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite 
comments on this proposed addition to our regulations.

DATES: We must receive written comments on or before May 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses:
     Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 34, P.O. Box 14412, 
Washington, DC 20044-4412.
     202-927-8525 (facsimile).
     nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail).
     https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. An online 
comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site.
     https://www.regulations.gov (Federal e-rulemaking portal; 
follow instructions for submitting comments).
    You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate 
maps, and any comments we receive about this notice by appointment at 
the TTB Library, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an 
appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the 
notice and comments online at https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/
index.htm.
    See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific 
instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for 
information on how to request a public hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. A. Sutton, Regulations and 
Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 
Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-
1254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Viticultural Areas

TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA 
Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol beverage labels 
provide the consumer with adequate information regarding a product's 
identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those 
labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco 
Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these regulations.
    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the 
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their 
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine 
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains 
the list of approved viticultural areas.

Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) 
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries 
of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. 
These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given 
quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes 
grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of 
viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the 
origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify 
wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is 
neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in 
that area.

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure 
for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any 
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region 
as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires 
the petition to include--
     Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally 
and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
     Historical or current evidence that supports setting the 
boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
     Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as 
climate, elevation, physical features, and soils, that distinguish the 
proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
     A description of the specific boundary of the proposed 
viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological 
Survey (USGS) maps; and
     A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed 
viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.

Fort Ross-Seaview Petition

    Patrick Shabram, on his own behalf and on behalf of David Hirsch of 
Hirsch Vineyards, submitted a petition to establish the ``Fort Ross-
Seaview'' American viticultural area in western Sonoma County, 
California. The proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area is within 
the existing North Coast (27 CFR 9.30) and Sonoma Coast (27 CFR 9.116) 
viticultural areas. The area is close to the Pacific Ocean about 65 
miles north-northwest of San Francisco. The petitioner states that the 
proposed

[[Page 11175]]

area currently has 18 commercial vineyards on 506 acres.

Name Evidence

    Russian fur trappers established Fort Ross in 1812 on a bluff 
overlooking the Pacific Ocean, just west of the boundary of the 
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area. The fort served as 
Russia's southern-most outpost in the Pacific Northwest until it was 
abandoned in 1841. The site of the fort has been a California State 
historical park since 1906, and, today, the reconstructed fort is open 
to the public. Seaview is a small, unincorporated community and real 
estate development located along the Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 
1), a short distance northwest of the Fort Ross historical park. Much 
of the Seaview community is within the proposed viticultural area.
    United States Geological Survey (USGS) and California State 
Automobile Association maps note the Fort Ross and Seaview names. The 
1978 Fort Ross USGS quadrangle map covers a substantial portion of the 
proposed viticultural area and shows Fort Ross Road winding through the 
southern portion of the proposed area. The map also shows Seaview Road 
and Seaview Cemetery within the proposed area. The October 2000 
California State Automobile Association Mendocino and Sonoma Coast map 
identifies Fort Ross and shows Fort Ross and Seaview Roads.
    Local winegrowers, the petitioner explains, commonly refer to the 
area as ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' to better define its remote location. 
According to Daniel Schoenfeld, a resident of the area since 1972 and a 
grape grower for 22 years, the Fort Ross-Seaview name is used to 
identify the proposed area and eliminate possible confusion with other 
geographic names. He also notes an increase in the use of the Fort 
Ross-Seaview name in the past several years. For example, Charles L. 
Sullivan's 2001 history of western Sonoma County viticulture, ``A 
Miraculous Intersection,'' uses the term ``Fort Ross-Seaview district'' 
to describe the land in and near the proposed viticultural area. Mr. 
Schoenfeld further explains that, historically and in modern times, all 
three names, ``Fort Ross,'' ``Seaview,'' and ``Fort Ross-Seaview,'' 
have served to identify the area.

Boundary Evidence

    The petition notes that viticulture within the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area dates to 1817 when Captain Leontii 
Andreianovich Hagemeister brought Peruvian grape cuttings to Fort Ross. 
The petition states that modern viticulture began in the proposed Fort 
Ross-Seaview area in 1973 when Michael Bohan planted 2 acres of grapes 
3 miles east of Fort Ross, between Seaview Road and Creighton Ridge. In 
1974, he planted another 15 acres, and in 1976 he started selling his 
grape harvest to wineries in Sonoma and Santa Cruz Counties, 
California. David Hirsch states in an April 15, 2003, letter that he 
planted a vineyard in 1980 between the 1,300- and 1,600-foot elevations 
in the Fort Ross-Seaview area. As of spring 2003, the petition notes 
that 18 commercial vineyards covering 506 acres exist within the 
proposed viticultural area.
    The petitioner states that the boundary of the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area incorporates the higher elevations of the 
hills and mountains located along the Pacific coast near Fort Ross and 
Seaview in western Sonoma County. The 920-foot elevation line defines 
much of the proposed area's boundary, the petitioner explains, since it 
marks the separation between the higher, sunnier elevations of the 
proposed area and the surrounding lower, foggy elevations. According to 
the petitioner, the lack of coastal marine fog at the higher elevations 
within the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area gives it a 
unique microclimate.
    David Hirsch notes in an April 2003 letter that, due to the lack of 
coastal fog above the 920-foot contour, the proposed viticultural area 
receives more hours of solar radiation than the surrounding lower 
elevations, where grapes fail to grow. Hirsch states, ``[d]uring the 
summer, fog usually covers the Sonoma Coast during the morning and 
burns off about noon. This marine fog layer seldom rises above 900 feet 
which explains why there are no vineyards below this elevation in the 
proposed area.'' The petitioner adds that the Pacific Ocean's 
moderating temperatures reduce the risk of nighttime freeze and frost 
within the proposed viticultural area.

Growing Conditions

Topography
    The proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area is composed of 
steep, mountainous terrain that includes canyons, narrow valleys, 
ridges, and 800- to 1,800-foot peaks, as shown on the USGS maps of the 
area. Elevations within the proposed area generally run between 920 and 
1,800 feet. Light-duty and unimproved roads and jeep trails meander 
through the area, and creeks and ponds are scattered within it as well. 
The petitioner explains that vineyards within the proposed area are 
generally located on rounded ridges with summits that extend above 
1,200 feet.
    The USGS maps provided by the petitioner show the western boundary 
of the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area to be located 
between 0.5 mile and 2.5 miles from the Pacific coastline and mostly at 
or above the 920-foot elevation line. The maps also show that the San 
Andreas Rift Zone runs generally parallel to the proposed western 
boundary line, between the boundary and the Pacific coastline.

Soils

    A large variety of soils exist within the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area, according to the petitioner. No predominant 
soil type exists, the petitioner explains, and diverse soil series are 
common to the area, including Yorkville, Boomer, Sobrante, and 
Laughlin. The Hugo Series soils are abundant in the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area and are common in the mountain ranges of 
Sonoma County and in Mendocino County to the north, according to the 
petitioner. These soils, derived from sandstone and shale parent 
material, as noted on pages 44 and 45 of the 1990 Soil Survey of Sonoma 
County, California, are well-drained, very gravelly loams.
    The petitioner emphasizes that the majority of soils are derived 
from metamorphic rock, which is altered by heat, pressure, shearing, or 
infusion. These metamorphic soils are common in the proposed area, 
especially east of the San Andreas Rift Zone. M.E. Huffman and C.F. 
Armstrong documented these soils on California Department of 
Conservation Division of Mines and Geology maps, which were reprinted 
in 2000.

Climate

    As noted above in the Boundary Evidence discussion, the petitioner 
states that the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area has a 
unique microclimate due to the lack of marine fog within its boundary. 
The proposed area, which is generally above 900 feet in elevation, 
receives more sun and is warmer than the surrounding land below 900 
feet. The surrounding, lower elevation land is cooler and has a shorter 
growing season than the proposed area due to the prevalence of marine 
fog below the 900-foot elevation line.
    Robert Sisson, former County Director and Farm Advisor for Sonoma 
County, studied the coastal fog and its effects on agriculture for more 
than three decades

[[Page 11176]]

according to Carol Ann Lawson in her 1976 University of California-
Davis M.A. thesis, ``Guidelines for Assessing the Viticultural 
Potential of Sonoma County: An Analysis of the Physical Environment.'' 
According to Lawson and the petitioner, Sisson understood the climatic 
diversity of the lower elevation, foggy coastal areas that surround 
some of the higher, sunnier elevations. Sisson's work substantiates the 
warmer climate classification for the high elevations within the 
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area, according to Lawson and 
the petitioner.
    Lawson's 1976 map ``Lines of Heaviest and Average Maximum Fog 
Intrusion for Sonoma County'' places the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview 
viticultural area in the heaviest fog intrusion area, which spans the 
entire coast of Sonoma County. While this map's heavy fog line does not 
detail the higher elevations and the contrasting warmer and sunnier 
microclimates, Sisson's climatic data is depicted on the ``Climate 
Types of Sonoma County'' map (Vassen, 1986), which documents that the 
proposed viticultural area is in the ``Coastal Cool'' area. According 
to the petitioner, this region grows some grape varietals, in contrast 
to the surrounding lower, cooler and less sunny ``Marine'' climate 
areas that cannot sustain viticulture.
    The north California ocean water, rarely above 60 degrees 
Fahrenheit, as the petitioner notes, creates a fogbank from mid-spring 
to fall. This fog moves inland through lower-elevation mountain gaps 
and valleys. The fog cools temperatures and reduces sunshine in the 
early morning and late afternoon at elevations of 900 feet or less, 
according to the petitioner. Also, the marine-influenced fog rarely 
rises above the 900-foot elevation line in this Pacific coastal region. 
Conversely, the proposed viticultural area, primarily between the 920- 
and 1,800-foot elevation lines, has more daily sun, warmer 
temperatures, and less fog during the growing season than the 
surrounding, lower areas.
    The established Sonoma Coast and Russian River Valley viticultural 
areas, unlike the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area, 
generally have marine fog, which, the petitioner notes, creates a cool, 
less sunny climate within those areas. Although the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area is within the much larger Sonoma Coast 
viticultural area and not far from the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area, the petitioner documents that it has a warmer 
microclimate despite its high elevation.
    The petitioner provides a 1995 comparison of temperatures between 
Fort Ross State Historical Park at the 112-foot elevation just west of 
the proposed boundary, and Campmeeting Ridge at the 1,220-foot 
elevation inside the proposed area's boundary. The comparison shows 
that the higher elevation ridge within the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview 
area has warmer temperatures from May through October. Campmeeting 
Ridge has both warmer daily high temperatures May through October and 
warmer daily low temperatures in June, and in August through October 
when compared to the lower elevations of the State park. This 
comparison, based on National Climatic Data Center information, shows 
significant growing season temperature variations between the lower and 
higher elevations.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative boundary description of the petitioned-for 
viticultural area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end 
of this notice.

Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and we list them below 
in the proposed regulatory text.

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. If we establish this proposed viticultural area, its 
name, ``Fort Ross-Seaview,'' will be recognized as a name of 
viticultural significance, as will its abbreviated form, ``Ft. Ross-
Seaview.''
    In addition, with the establishment of the Fort Ross-Seaview 
viticultural area, the name ``Fort Ross,'' or its abbreviated form, 
``Ft. Ross,'' standing alone will be considered a term of viticultural 
significance because consumers and vintners could reasonably attribute 
the quality, reputation, or other characteristic of wine made from 
grapes grown in the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area to the 
name Fort Ross itself. We note in this regard that searches of the 
Geographic Names Information System maintained by the U.S. Geological 
Survey and the Internet reveal that the names ``Fort Ross'' and ``Ft. 
Ross'' appear to apply only to the region of Sonoma County, California, 
where the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area is located. 
Similar searches show that the name ``Seaview'' standing alone is used 
for a number of places across the United States. We therefore do not 
believe that ``Seaview'' standing alone would have viticultural 
significance. Also see 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3), which provides that a name 
has viticultural significance when determined by a TTB officer. 
Therefore, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this 
document specifies that ``Fort Ross-Seaview,'' ``Ft. Ross-Seaview,'' 
``Fort Ross,'' and ``Ft. Ross'' as terms of viticultural significance 
for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations.
    If this proposed text is adopted as a final rule, wine bottlers 
using ``Fort Ross-Seaview,'' ``Ft. Ross-Seaview,'' ``Fort Ross,'' or 
``Ft. Ross'' 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 one of those names as an appellation of 
origin.
    For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin a 
viticultural area name or other term specified as being viticulturally 
significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of 
the grapes used to make the wine must have been grown within the area 
represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the 
other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not 
eligible to use as an appellation of origin a viticultural area name or 
other viticulturally significant term that 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 
viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term appears 
in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler 
would have to obtain approval of a new label. Accordingly, if a new 
label or a previously approved label uses the name ``Fort Ross-
Seaview,'' Ft. Ross-Seaview,'' ``Fort Ross,'' or ``Ft. Ross'' for a 
wine that does not meet the 85 percent standard, the new label will not 
be approved, and the previously approved label will be subject to 
revocation, upon the effective date of the approval of the Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area.
    Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a 
viticultural area 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.

Public Participation

Comments Invited

    We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether 
we should establish the proposed viticultural area. We are also 
interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the 
name, climatic, boundary and other required information submitted in 
support of the petition. In addition, we are interested

[[Page 11177]]

in receiving comments on our proposal to also identify ``Ft. Ross-
Seaview,'' ``Fort Ross,'' and ``Ft. Ross,'' as terms of viticultural 
significance. While we do not believe that ``Seaview'' standing alone 
would have viticultural significance, we also seek comments on this 
point. Please provide any available specific information in support of 
your comments.
    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the 
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area on brand labels that 
include the words ``Fort Ross-Seaview,'' ``Ft. Ross-Seaview,'' ``Fort 
Ross,'' or ``Ft. Ross'' as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine 
Labels, we are particularly interested in comments regarding whether 
there will be a conflict between the proposed area name and currently 
used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, 
the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any 
anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed 
viticultural area will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. We 
are also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid 
conflicts, for example by adopting a modified or different name for the 
viticultural area.

Submitting Comments

    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this 
notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and 
mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language 
acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of 
comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit 
comments in one of five ways:
     Mail: You may send written comments to TTB at the address 
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
     Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile 
transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must--
    (1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
    (2) Contain a legible, written signature; and
    (3) Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures 
electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments 
that exceed five pages.
     E-mail: You may e-mail comments to nprm@ttb.gov. Comments 
transmitted by electronic mail must--
    (1) Contain your e-mail address;
    (2) Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
    (3) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper.
     Online form: We provide a comment form with the online 
copy of this notice on our Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/
rules/index.htm. Select the ``Send comments via e-mail'' link under 
this notice number.
     Federal e-rulemaking portal: To submit comments to us via 
the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit https://www.regulations.gov and 
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing 
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right 
to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether to hold a public 
hearing.

Confidentiality

    All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to 
disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you 
consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

Public Disclosure

    You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate 
maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Library at 
1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 
20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our librarian at the above 
address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or 
to request copies of comments.
    For your convenience, we will post this notice and any comments we 
receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. We may omit voluminous 
attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all 
cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Library. To access 
the online copies of this notice and the posted comments, visit https://
www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. Select the ``View Comments'' link 
under this notice number to view the posted comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived 
from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a 
proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. 
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as 
defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires 
no regulatory assessment.

Drafting Information

    N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Procedures Division drafted this 
notice.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend 
title 27, chapter 1, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

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

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

    2. Amend subpart C by adding Sec.  9.---- to read as follows:

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas


Sec.  9.----  Fort Ross-Seaview.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``Fort Ross-Seaview''. For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, ``Fort Ross-Seaview'', ``Ft. Ross-Seaview'', ``Fort Ross'', 
and ``Ft. Ross'' are terms of viticultural significance.
    (b) Approved Maps. The five United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the 
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are titled--
    (1) Arched Rock, California--Sonoma Co., 1977 edition;
    (2) Fort Ross, California--Sonoma Co., 1978 edition;
    (3) Plantation, California--Sonoma Co., 1977 edition;
    (4) Annapolis, California--Sonoma Co., 1977 edition; and
    (5) Tombs Creek, California--Sonoma Co., 1978 edition.
    (c) Boundary. The Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area is located in 
Sonoma County, California. The area's boundary is defined as follows:
    (1) The beginning point is on the Arched Rock map at the 
intersection of the 920-foot elevation line and Meyers Grade Road, T8N, 
R12W. From the beginning point, the boundary line proceeds northwest on 
Meyers Grade Road about 4.3 miles to the road's intersection with 
Seaview and Fort Ross Roads, T8N, R12W (Fort Ross Quadrangle); then
    (2) Continues northwest on Seaview Road about 6.4 miles to its 
intersection with Kruse Ranch and Hauser Bridge

[[Page 11178]]

Roads in the southeast corner of section 28, T9N, R13W (Plantation 
Quadrangle); then
    (3) Continues west on Kruse Ranch Road about 0.2 mile to its 
intersection with the 920-foot elevation line, T9N, R13W (Plantation 
Quadrangle); then
    (4) Proceeds northerly then easterly along the 920-foot elevation 
line about 2.2 miles to its intersection with Hauser Bridge Road, 
section 27, T9N, R13W (Plantation Quadrangle); then
    (5) Proceeds east on Hauser Bridge Road about 1.5 miles to its 
intersection with the 920-foot elevation line, section 23, T9N, R13W 
(Plantation Quadrangle); then
    (6) Proceeds northwesterly then easterly along the 920-foot 
elevation line about 7.8 miles to its intersection with an unnamed, 
unimproved road that forks to the south from Tin Barn Road, section 8, 
T9N, R13W (Annapolis Quadrangle); then
    (7) Proceeds east then north along the unnamed, unimproved road to 
its intersection with Tin Barn Road, section 8, T9N, R13W (Annapolis 
Quadrangle); then
    (8) Proceeds east in a straight line about 1.55 miles to the line's 
intersection with Haupt Creek, section 10, T9N, R13W (Annapolis 
Quadrangle); then
    (9) Follows Haupt Creek southeasterly about 1.2 miles to its 
junction with the western boundary of section 11, T9N, R13W (Annapolis 
Quadrangle); then
    (10) Proceeds straight north along the western boundary of section 
11 about 0.9 mile to the northwest corner of section 11 (near Buck 
Spring), T9N, R13W (Annapolis Quadrangle); then
    (11) Proceeds 1.1 miles straight east along the northern boundary 
of section 11 and then section 12 to the section line's intersection 
with an unnamed, unimproved road along Skyline Ridge, section 12, T9N, 
R13W (Annapolis Quadrangle);
    (12) Follows the unnamed, unimproved road southeast about 1.3 miles 
to the road's intersection with the 1,200-foot elevation line, section 
13, T9N, R13W (Tombs Creek Quadrangle); then
    (13) Proceeds southeasterly along the 1,200-foot elevation line 
about 0.6 mile its intersection with Allen Creek, section 18, T9N, R12W 
(Tombs Creek Quadrangle); then
    (14) Follows Allen Creek north about 0.2 mile to its intersection 
with the 920-foot elevation line, section 18, T9N, R12W (Tombs Creek 
Quadrangle); then
    (15) Proceeds easterly and then southeasterly along the meandering 
920-foot elevation line to its intersection with Jim Creek, south of a 
1,200-foot plateau named The Island, section 21, T9N, R12W (Fort Ross 
Quadrangle); then
    (16) Follows Jim Creek southeast about 0.7 mile to its intersection 
with the northern boundary of section 27, T9N, R12W (Fort Ross 
Quadrangle); then
    (17) Proceeds along the northern boundary of section 27, T9N, R12W, 
to the northeast corner of that section (Fort Ross Quadrangle); then
    (18) Proceeds south along the eastern boundaries of sections 27 and 
34, T9N, R12W, and continues south along the eastern boundaries of 
sections 3, 10, 15, and 22, T8N, R12W, to the intersection of the 
eastern boundary of section 22 and Fort Ross Road (Fort Ross 
Quadrangle); then
    (19) Proceeds east a short distance on Fort Ross Road to the road's 
intersection with the Middle Branch of Russian Gulch Creek, and then 
follows the creek south for about 1.2 miles to the creek's intersection 
with the 920-foot elevation line, east-southeast of the Black Mountain 
Conservation Camp, section 26, T8N, R12W (Fort Ross Quadrangle); then
    (20) Proceeds southerly along the meandering 920-foot elevation 
line about 8.1 miles, passing between the Fort Ross and Arched Rock 
maps as the 920-foot elevation line meanders north then south around 
the West Branch of Russian Gulch, and returns to the beginning point at 
Meyers Grade Road, T8N, R12W (Arched Rock Quadrangle).

    Dated: February 20, 2005.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-4390 Filed 3-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P