text:
Brown-Forman Corp in Spirits (World)
Brown-Forman Corp in Spirits (World)
Published: March 2015
Publisher: Euromonitor International
Product ref: 234811
Pages: 33
Format: PDF
Delivery: Immediate download
Brown-Forman is among the leading forces in the advancing whiskies category while the iconic Jack Daniel's brand secures the company an enviable place in the booming bourbon segment. This report examines the question of geographic reach and category diversification while highlighting opportunities and pitfalls as the era of "Brown Spirits" is now in full swing.
Euromonitor International's Brown-Forman Corp in Spirits (World) Company Profile offers detailed strategic analysis of the company's business, examining its performance in the Alcoholic Drinks industry. The report examines company shares by region and sector, product developments, market and distribution strategies, challenges from the competition and future prospects. Use it to understand opportunities and threats facing the business and the factors driving success.
Product coverage: Beer, Cider/Perry, RTDs/High-Strength Premixes, Spirits, Wine.
Data coverage: market sizes (historic and forecasts), company shares, brand shares and distribution data.
Why buy this report?
• Get a detailed picture of the Alcoholic Drinks market;
• Pinpoint growth sectors and identify factors driving change;
• Understand the competitive environment, the market's major players and leading brands;
• Use five-year forecasts to assess how the market is predicted to develop.
Euromonitor International has over 40 years' experience of publishing market research reports, business reference books and online information systems. With offices in London, Chicago, Singapore, Shanghai, Vilnius, Dubai, Cape Town, Santiago, Sydney, Tokyo and Bangalore and a network of over 800 analysts worldwide, Euromonitor International has a unique capability to develop reliable information resources to help drive informed strategic planning.
Scope of the Report
Strategic Evaluation
Competitive Positioning
Market Assessment
Geographic and Category Opportunities
Brand Strategy
Need help before you order?
+44 (0)1527 573 618
9:00am - 5:30pm Mon - Fri
Related research categories
By company: Brown-Forman
Or contact our research team
We want to meet your research requirements. Let us know what you need, how to contact you and we will do the rest.


text:
- Apr 23:
- PG&E presents case for controversial tree removal plan to Contra Costa County supervisors
- Apr 11:
- PG&E agrees to put tree cutting plans on hold in Walnut Creek
- Apr 9:
- PG&E agrees to temporarily stop cutting down trees in Concord
- Apr 4:
- Despite 'pause,' PG&E still cutting down trees
- Mar 28:
- Barnidge: Dear PG&E, keep your chain saws away from our trees!
- Mar 27:
- PG&E agrees to wait on tree chopping until it meets with local officials opposed to plan
- Mar 26:
- PG&E tree removal would hit Walnut Creek hard
- Mar 25:
- Cities rail against PG&E plan that would chop down thousands of trees
- VeiwPoints by Rob Schroder: PG&E tree removal project needs more study
A majestic Siberian elm towers over the entrance to the Pleasant Hill Cohousing community tucked at the end of Lisa Lane.
The elm is one tree among a dense swath of mature oaks, redwoods, walnuts and shrubs separating the 32-unit development from the bustling Iron Horse Trail.
To the residents, this lush greenery is more than just beautiful, it's functional -- providing privacy from passers-by, cooling shade in the summer and a buffer from the noise and exhaust caused by traffic on nearby Monument Boulevard.
And that could all be lost.
Cutting down these trees is part of Pacific Gas and Electric's plan to remove vegetation and structures that block access to its vast network of natural gas pipelines.
"It's everything," said Susan Fuller, who has lived in her two-bedroom unit for five years. "We would be naked here."
The tree-cutting plan has angered residents and city leaders across the East Bay who say the utility has no right to unilaterally chop down trees without permits.
After the public outcry, PG&E backed off and agreed not to cut down trees on public property or any protected trees on private property until it reaches agreements with the cities.
But some cities aren't taking the utility at its word -- they're preparing to file lawsuits if PG&E revs up the chain saws.
It's unclear how this standoff will end.
PG&E insists the trees must go and remains unwilling to comply, so far, with local tree protection ordinances.
City leaders also refuse to bend, arguing the company hasn't demonstrated the need to chop down thousands of trees.
"Safety is number one," said Martinez Mayor Rob Schroder. "But this is kind of a slash-and-burn, scorched-earth kind of policy here and it's overreaching."
The $500 million Pipeline Pathways project is a statewide initiative to clear obstructions from the utility company's 6,750 miles of underground gas lines from Bakersfield to Eureka. PG&E says it needs to remove the trees, shrubs and structures on private and public property to ensure pipeline safety -- a top priority after the 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes.
Rules vary from city to city, but permits -- and sometimes public hearings -- typically are required to remove trees from private property, often depending on their size and species.
Some speculate PG&E may balk at getting permits for fear of triggering a costly and time-consuming environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
"The permitting process is different in each city. We are working with each city to understand what information they need from us prior to any removals taking place," PG&E spokeswoman Debbie Felix said.
But the utility still has not committed to following tree protection laws.
Martinez, along with Walnut Creek, Concord, Lafayette, Danville, Pleasant Hill, Clayton, Dublin, Livermore, El Cerrito, Lafayette and Brentwood have all expressed concern with PG&E's plan.
And since the rollout of Pipeline Pathways began in Contra Costa County earlier this year, PG&E seems to have changed its message about the reason for the project.
When the utility described the project to the Concord City Council in February, representatives said 730 trees in the city must be removed to improve access to the pipes.
Not mentioned in that presentation -- or in notification letters it has sent residents in several cities -- was PG&E's contention that tree roots can damage the protective coating around the gas pipelines.
The roots also didn't come up when a PG&E representative explained the reason for removing trees to the Pleasant Hill Cohousing residents, according to Fuller. She recalled the reason was so PG&E could have a helicopter come over and survey the pipeline.
By the time PG&E came to the Pleasant Hill City Council meeting on April 7 to discuss the need to cut down 180 trees there, the utility's main focus was on the threat from tree roots. The steel pipelines are wrapped in a protective coating that tree roots can damage, possibly leading to external corrosion, according to the utility.
Pleasant Hill Mayor Tim Flaherty asked whether the driving force behind the project is the danger the tree roots pose to the pipeline or gaining the ability to visually inspect the gas lines. PG&E Vice President Kirk Johnson, responded unequivocally, "It's the roots."
PG&E commissioned a study on the potential for tree roots to interfere with pipelines.
"We received the tree root study at the end of January, so the (Pipeline Pathways) program had already started. This is one part of it," Felix said. "Tree roots can cause damage to the coating of pipelines which removes a layer of protection. It's the first line of defense against corrosion."
However, the study was inconclusive about whether the presence of tree roots, in fact, leads to corrosion. The study is clear if tree roots wrap around the pipeline and the tree falls, the pipe could be damaged.
The study recommends PG&E develop a plan for trees to determine if they pose a threat to pipelines that takes into account several factors, including tree species and coating type.
"The development of a risk framework will provide a defensible approach for evaluating and prioritizing trees located along the pipeline (right of way)," the study says.
In Concord, where the City Council passed a resolution demanding the utility stop all tree removals until certain conditions are met, the staff arborist is inspecting city-owned trees to determine whether they are likely to damage the gas lines.
"If the roots are not going to extend to a location near the pipeline, it's difficult for PG&E to suggest that particular tree poses any risk," City Attorney Mark Coon said.
Walnut Creek Mayor Pro Tem Bob Simmons argued most tree roots go no more than ¿3 feet deep and, according to the PG&E study, the average depth of cover above the pipe is 4.2 feet.
"(PG&E) is focused on wanting to be able to fly their route by helicopter," Simmons said. "And to do that they need the tree canopy cleared and that's what this is about."
Some cities have begun preparing their legal arsenal. Walnut Creek and Pleasanton recently authorized their city attorneys to sue the utility should it start chopping down trees.
"PG&E and its contractors could start work any day, so we need to be able to move on a moment's notice," Walnut Creek Mayor Kristina Lawson said.
Walnut Creek leaders have asked PG&E to sign an interim agreement not to contact residents, to comply with city tree protection laws and to work with the city arborist to inspect each tree targeted for removal.
"The ball is largely in their court at this point," Lawson said.
Contact Elisabeth Nardi at 925-952-2617. Follow her at Twitter.com/enardi10.
Walnut Creek
Pleasant Hill

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Quality CareFind out why Mayo Clinic is the right place for your health care. Make an appointment.
Meet the StaffFind a directory of doctors and departments at all Mayo Clinic campuses. Visit now.
Research and Clinical TrialsSee how Mayo Clinic research and clinical trials advance the science of medicine and improve patient care. Explore now.
Visit Our SchoolsEducators at Mayo Clinic train tomorrow's leaders to deliver compassionate, high-value, safe patient care. Choose a degree.
Professional ServicesExplore Mayo Clinic's many resources and see jobs available for medical professionals. Get updates.
Give to Mayo ClinicHelp set a new world standard in care for people everywhere. Give now.
Mayo Clinic offers appointments in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota and at Mayo Clinic Health System locations.
Subscribe to Housecall
Our general interest e-newsletter keeps you up to date on a wide variety of health topics.
Pet allergy signs and symptoms caused by inflammation of nasal passages include:
If your pet allergy contributes to asthma, you may also experience:
Some people with pet allergy may also experience skin symptoms. Allergic dermatitis is an immune system reaction that causes skin inflammation. Direct contact with an allergy-causing pet may trigger allergic dermatitis signs and symptoms, which may include:
Some signs and symptoms of pet allergy, such as a runny nose or sneezing, are similar to those of the common cold. Sometimes it's difficult to know whether you have a cold or an allergy. If symptoms persist for more than one week, you might have an allergy.
If your signs and symptoms are severe — such as severe nasal congestion, difficulty sleeping or wheezing — call your doctor. Seek emergency care if wheezing or shortness of breath rapidly worsens or if you are short of breath with minimal activity.
Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.
Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic.
Any use of this site constitutes your agreement to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy linked below.
A single copy of these materials may be reprinted for noncommercial personal use only. "Mayo," "Mayo Clinic," "MayoClinic.org," "Mayo Clinic Healthy Living," and the triple-shield Mayo Clinic logo are trademarks of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.


text:
The decision by the U.S. Forest Service to approve the Peak 6 expansion at Breckenridge Ski Resort has been upheld after rejecting two appeals, carrying endorsements by 45 individuals and environmental groups.
The Forest Service reviewed the appeals, which were filed Oct. 9, and concluded that the approval of the 550-acre expansion did not violate any federal laws, regulations or policies and recommended upholding White River National Forest supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams' decision.
The formal decision was made by appeals deciding officer Brian Ferebee, a deputy regional forester for resources based in Denver.
"We take the appeal process extremely seriously," Fitzwilliams said. "It's a very strict process and we're harder on ourselves than often others would be on us."
With the rejection of the appeals, Breckenridge has the go-ahead to implement the expansion.
The ski resort plans to add two new lifts, a ski patrol/warming hut and a restroom facility. New terrain will encompass seven below-treeline trails - totaling roughly 68 acres - as well as about 339 acres of lift-served intermediate, advanced-intermediate and expert skiing above treeline. Approximately 143 acres of hike-to terrain will also be added.
"I am delighted the decision was upheld and eventually I look forward to moving forward with implementation," Fitzwilliams said.
Some Breck residents are less inclined to celebrate the expansion.
Rocky Smith, a forest policy consultant previously employed by Rocky Mountain Wild who championed the effort of the appeal, said the Forest Service didn't provide a strong argument to uphold the decision.
"This was a very poor review with very poor reasons they gave for rejecting the appeal," Smith said. "It seems like they didn't read our appeal or they didn't understand it. They responded in a way that makes you shake your head and say 'why would they say that?'"
The resort is required to wait 15 business days, allowing the implementation process to begin as early as Dec. 14, according to Peech Keller, with the Forest Service.
"We've been hard at work with construction planning so that we can begin implementation as soon as possible," said Pat Campbell, chief operating officer of Breckenridge Ski Resort. "We are incredibly excited to begin work on Peak 6 and be able to bring to fruition a 23 percent increase in Breckenridge's terrain for our guests."
Smith said he's already heard from some opposition affiliated with the appeal that they'd like to argue their case in federal court after review by the University of Denver Law Center.
"We're considering legal action, but we just don't know yet if we'll go forward with that or not," Smith said. "I don't know what judges we would get and I could not articulate what I think the outcome would be. The lawyers tell us they think it's a case worth taking."
Though deciding official Fitzwilliams said the region around Peak 6 is already unable to meet federal standards for lynx habitat, opponents of the expansion say impacts are not weighed by the need to ease crowding.
"Lynx habitat is going to be hurt by fragmenting the area they travel," Smith said previously. "The Forest Service seems to think that since the habitat is already so bad it's OK to make it worse. It has been affected, no question, by the existing ski area. Right now it is impaired somewhat, but it's not severed. This expansion might sever it."
Fitzwilliams and researchers for the Forest Service looked at conservation efforts in the project area, but said they "found very few if any that would help lynx at all."
Many Breck residents in opposition are concerned that the expansion will not ease crowding, but intensify it.
"Breckenridge is a brutally crowded ski resort," said Chad Zanca, a longtime Breck resident who says he regularly rides terrain off Peak 6. "To make it bigger and bring more people will only make it worse. Once this boundary is maxed out, where do they go next?"
Additionally, opponents of the decision argue the proposed intermediate terrain is unsuitable for the average skier and would not divert traffic from other parts of the ski area.
"Most of the terrain that would be opened up on Peak 6 is not intermediate. It's too steep, would not be graded and it gets avalanche debris from above," Smith said. "It's going to be tough for the average intermediate skier, some of it is just way too steep."
But, Breckenridge officials say the new terrain will spread out skier traffic.
"We appreciate the strong interest and thoughtful input of the community, which has helped to make this a better project," Campbell said. "The expanded terrain will help tremendously to spread out the large crowds we see today and alleviate long lift lines. Further, our guests will be able to explore and enjoy an entirely new skiing experience of high-alpine bowl skiing at Peak 6."
Still, with the expansion approval upheld, those opposed feel the appeal process was an uphill battle.
"The Forest Service just wanted to affirm this in any way they could, it's very disappointing," Smith said. "We thought there was a pretty good chance we would lose this because you just usually don't win against the Forest Service."