AppellationAmerica - Spring Mountain District

Alan Goldfarb for AppellationAmerica (appelationAmerica.com) in March 2006

The following content was written by Alan Goldfarb for AppellationAmerica (appelationAmerica.com) in March 2006.

Spring Mountain District

Currently known for its mountain-grown Cabernets, this region’s first premium wines were whites, particularly Chardonnay and Riesling. The vineyards in this part of Napa County are hand-tilled and range from small to smaller. Grapes are handpicked on steep, east-facing terraces of the Mayacamas Mountains. Vineyards here are situated from 400-2,600 feet above sea level. Due to the higher elevations of the vineyards, fog is not a factor here like it is in much of Napa Valley. However, an afternoon breeze from San Pablo Bay cools the vines in the afternoon. Days are cooler and nights are warmer than on the valley floor. The growing season is long, ranging from mid-March to as late as November. Spring Mountain District’s wine-growing history reaches back as far as the Civil War. By 1874, the legendary Beringer brothers had a vineyard planted here, and in 1893 Tiburcio Parrot’s Miravalle Vineyards won a gold medal for Spring Mountain at the World’s Fair. This area continues to produce quality wines and faces a solid future as one of Napa’s premier wine-growing appellations.

Profiling the Spring Mountain District of the Napa Valley

Cabernet Sauvignon is the most celebrated grape of Spring Mountain. The wines feature powerful and pronounced tannic structures. The wines are noticeably aggressive, arguably the most full-throttle wines of the Napa Valley.

On a recent mid-winter afternoon, sitting in the great room at Cain Vineyard & Winery on top of Spring Mountain, great slashes of wind-swept rain pounded the tall mullioned windows, finally washing down the panes as if one were trapped in an automobile inside a car wash. Fifteen minutes later, while the torrents persisted up on the mountain, down below as one descended into the village of St. Helena, the velocity of the rain had withered to a mere drizzle.

Later that night the myriad springs on the mountain would carry the rain water down to the Napa River below, as worried Napans all along its banks watch closely for any signs of overflow.

Such is an example of the vagaries of weather that define and affect the viticultural landscape of Spring Mountain as it wends its way westward above St. Helena beginning at an altitude of 400 feet climbing to nearly 2,600 feet on the upper reaches where it meets the Sonoma County line. Spring Mountain receives more than double the annual rainfall levels of the Napa Valley floor, with totals in some seasons up to 67 inches.

The climate of Spring Mountain is generally classified as Region II. Compared to the valley floor, the region has more moderate temperature ranges -- cooler days and warmer nights. This moderation results from a typical daily cycle during the growing season. Mornings warm more quickly than the valley floor because most vineyards lie above the fog line, while afternoons are cooled earlier by maritime winds from the Pacific Ocean. This afternoon cooling directly from the ocean is unique to Spring Mountain, and does not occur in other areas on the eastern slopes of the Mayacamas. Overall, the climate produces an unusually long growing season for Napa Valley with bud break in mid-March, veraison about July 1, and harvest from mid-September to November.

Spring Mountain is the middle of three Napa AVAs located on the Mayacamas Mountains and is not a peak in of itself but rather an area at the north-south midpoint of the range. As one might expect, it is warmer than Mount Veeder to the south and cooler than Diamond Mountain to the north.

Soil depths here vary but tend to be deeper than in other nearby mountain terrain. Spring Mountain soil types have two distinct characteristics: the region contains only residual upland soils and no alluvial soils, which predominate on the valley floor; and, the soils consist almost equally of Franciscan sedimentary rocks (sandstone and conglomerates) and Sonoma Volcanics. This combination distinguishes the region from adjacent mountain areas. To the north, in the Diamond Mountain District, soils are almost entirely of volcanic origin, while to the south, in the Mount Veeder area, soils are primarily sedimentary.

Spring Mountain, officially established as an AVA in 1993, was described 25 years ago by a prominent wine writer as “probably more responsible than any other Napa hillside for creating the mystique of ‘mountain grapes.’ ” It may also be the oldest of Napa's mountain growing areas with documented evidence of vineyard plantings in the late 1800's.

Encompassed within its bounds are about 8,600 acres, of which about 1,000 are planted to vineyards. Currently the region has about 22 wineries and 30 vineyards.

Grape growing and winemaking declined in Spring Mountain from 1910 to 1940 due to the onset of phylloxera and Prohibition. The first reawakening of viticulture came in 1946, when Fred and Eleanor McCrea planted a small vineyard north of Mill Creek, and then in 1953 founded a legendary winery called Stony Hill. The resurgence began in earnest in the late 1960s and 1970s -- with the founding of several wineries, including Ritchie Creek, Yverdon (now Fife), Spring Mountain Winery, Smith-Madrone and Robert Keenan.

Red varieties account for 81 percent of Spring Mountain vineyard acres. Of these, Cabernet Sauvignon makes up more than half, and Merlot more than a quarter. The remainder includes Cabernet Franc, Zinfandel, Petit Verdot, Syrah, Petite Sirah, Malbec and Pinot Noir. White varieties comprise 19 percent of vineyard acres. Of these, Chardonnay predominates by far. Others include Riesling, Chenin Blanc, Sauvignon Blanc, Viognier and Muscat.

The conditions or primary features of Spring Mountain, which distinguish it from adjacent areas in Napa and Sonoma county, according to the AVA’s creators are:

• The predominance of moderately deep and deep upland soils, and the absence of alluvial soils.

• The equal mix of upland soils derived from volcanic and sedimentary parent material.

• The absence of volcanic rocklands and the shallow soils associated with such terrain.

“This unique combination of soils, geology, topography and flora sets Spring Mountain apart from surrounding regions …”

But do these factors realistically set Spring Mountain wines apart? According to my good colleague and friend, Larry Walker, in his book The Wines of the Napa Valley, “… It is difficult to pin down just what constitutes a Spring Mountain wine. You might know from the wine in the glass that it’s a Spring Mountain Cabernet, but still not be able to define it. Perhaps the great variation in soils, elevation, and exposures makes it difficult to find common threads. …”

Well, on a recent holiday afternoon, we at Appellation America set out to do just that -- find the commonalities in both terroir and style of Spring Mountain Cabernet Sauvignon. Follow the link below to my full report on our findings when we assembled a number of the region’s top winemakers to taste blind the wines of their appellation, with the intent to pinpoint a ‘Signature’ of Spring Mountain.

2001 Spring Mountain District Cabernet Sauvignon

“Isn’t defining terroir coming to peace with what our climate gives us?”

~ Craig Becker, Peacock Family winemaker

Spring Mountain Cabernet Sauvignon is marked by earthy, dusty and forest floor aromas. Fruit and spice characteristics run from clove and brown spice to dark black and brandied cherries, blueberry, raspberry, and anise. Oak is typically well-integrated and does not dominate the wines.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

On Presidents Day, February 20, 2006, five top winemakers from within the Spring Mountain District American Viticultural Area (AVA) gathered in AppellationAmerica’s downtown San Francisco offices. Joining the five-member Discovery Panel on this day were a handful of others, including winemakers and wine writers, sitting on a Confirmation Panel. Together the group would taste a total of 25 Spring Mountain District Cabernet Sauvignons from two different vintages and 16 wineries, looking to identify common themes which could be considered the Signature of the appellation.

All wines were tasted blind and were scrutinized in three stages:

1.) An independent organoleptic assessment to determine the individual characteristics and overall quality of each wine;

2.) A group discussion to coalesce an Appellation Identity based on dominant patterns in the wines;

3.) Identifying the “Signature” wines -- those wines that best represent what a Spring Mountain Cabernet should taste like in its terroir and stylistic commonalities, as determined in stage 2.

(The first and third stages of this process were initially approached silently with discussion following.)

Note: During this exercise, the 2001 and 2002 vintages, in two flights of 12 and 13 wines respectively, were tasted. However, only the results of the 2001s will be addressed in this Record of Proceedings. While clear patterns of commonality emerged in the 2001s, the 2002s -- because of their general immaturity --were a more disjointed group. And while there were many very fine wines in the group, in the end, AppellationAmerica and its panel of tasters agreed that it would not be fair to scrutinize these wines at this stage of their development, in hopes of determining meaningful terroir and stylistic commonalities. We will revisit the 2002s at a later date.

Discovery Panel

Charles Smith, Owner & Winemaker, Smith-Madrone Vineyards & Winery

Craig Becker, Winemaker, Peacock Family Vineyard

John Guilliams, Owner & Winemaker, Guilliams Vineyards

Matt Gardner, Winemaker, Robert Keenan Winery

Nile Zacherle, Winemaker, Barnett Vineyards

Confirmation Panel

Alan Goldfarb (Co-Moderator/Recorder): Regional Editor, AppellationAmerica

Roger Dial (Co-moderator): Publisher, AppellationAmerica

François Bugué: Cellarmaster & Associate Winemaker, Cain Vineyard & Winery

Catherine Fallis, MS: PlanetGrape

Courtney Cochran: Hip Tastes blog, www.courtneycochran.com

Chris Sawyer: Wine Business Monthly

An Overview of the 2001 Vintage on Spring Mountain:

(According to the winemakers sitting on the Discovery and Confirmation Panels)

In general, the 2001 vintage in the Napa Valley saw an early spring with up and down swings due to a surprise frost and early heat spikes. But the weather evened out, condensing the harvest and producing a near simultaneous crush of grapes.

It was a “Goldilocks” vintage because there was no rain during the growing season. Bud break occurred within a week of the Valley floor, when those on the mountain usually see bud break three weeks earlier than their colleagues below on the flats. In terms of maturation, it was an “optimal year.” If you had the “patience and the nerves,” you could pick at optimum maturity. But some growers on the mountain chose to pick early.

The season began with a cold and harsh March, with two deceptive heat spikes into the 80s, which coaxed the vines into a slightly earlier bloom. The hottest May on record and the third hottest June (in total degree days) led to a harvest time around two to three weeks ahead of normal. August cooled to near perfect temperatures with cool nights, allowing the grapes to settle and extend maturation on the vine, producing very clean fruit. In general, 2001 produced wines of very high quality.

Discovery Tasting Analysis:

Only four of the 12 wines in the flight were comprised of 100 percent Cabernet Sauvignon, according to the technical data submitted by each winery. (Two of those wines were among the five “Signature” wines.) But Cabernet, by definition, was the most predominant variety across the board. Merlot showed up in seven of the wines (with one winery using as much as 15 percent), while Petit Verdot was utilized in four wines (with the highest amount being 20 percent in one wine). Cabernet Franc appeared in four wines (with 14 percent being the highest amount in one wine). Malbec (5 percent) was used once, while a trace amount (0.21 percent) of Syrah (not from Spring Mountain but from Chiles Valley) was employed in one wine.

Listed alcohol levels ranged from a low of 13.5 percent to 15.4.

Oak regimens ranged with used wood comprising from 20 to 66 percent of the mix. The use of French oak was dominant in most wines, with four employing 100 percent new French barrels. Only one wine opted for 100 percent new American oak, while another employed a combination of new (21 percent) and 2-4 year old American wood. All of the “Signature” wines were made with French oak.

The wines ranged in price from $35 to $100.

Panelist John Guilliams, owner and winemaker at Guilliams Vineyards, asked rhetorically, whether the “terroir might show better when the fruit isn’t so ripe?” But he qualified that statement by stating, “I’m not saying which is better.”

However, during the flight, Guilliams singled out the fruit properties of the wines. “Many are displaying pure fruit character,” he said.

He added, “At least they’re not all the same.” To which Charles Smith, owner and winemaker at Smith-Madrone, concurred, “(There’s) a wide variance in styles.”

Craig Becker, winemaker at Peacock Family, suggested, “Isn’t defining terroir coming to peace with what our climate gives us?”

From the discussion in Stage 2 (Appellation Identity Building), the Discovery Panel was able to identify a number of terroir and stylistic commonalities of Spring Mountain Cabernet Sauvignon. Notable was the repeated use of such descriptors as earthy and dusty or sous bois -- aromas of the forest floor. Other common descriptors found in many of the wines included brown spice, clove, dark black cherry, black cherry, bright cherry, brandied cherries, blueberry, raspberry, and anise. The use of oak did not dominate the wines, according to the panel, and in fact, most observed that the wood was well-integrated. Additionally, cedar and mint aromas or flavors were rarely noted.

"Appellation Signature" Wines

To qualify for “Signature” standing a wine must represent the terroir and stylistic commonalities of the region. Each of the five signature wines below received a minimum of four-of-five panelists’ votes. Panelist comments are registered in the notes for each wine. The wines are listed alphabetically rather than in any order of preference.

• Barnett Vineyards

Cabernet Sauvignon, Sp