Submissions to August 16, 2016 Kneehill County Bylaw #1718 Public Hearing Click here

A Letter to the Premier from residents Patrick and Shauna Murphy

A Letter to MLA Derek Fildebrandt from residents Patrick and Shauna Murphy

From: Shauna Murphy <xxxx>
Sent: June-24-16 8:21 AM
To: Strathmore.Brooks@assembly.ab.ca
Cc: savetherosebud@hotmail.com
Subject: Save the Rosebud!

Dear Mr.Fildebrandt,

My husband and I have lived and worked in the hamlet of Rosebud for 20 years.  We moved here in part because of the beautiful serene surroundings and we want to protect that. Are you aware we are on a major migratory path for birds?  These along with all the other wildlife in the area will be negatively affected by the noise, construction and further exhaust pollution from this planned racetrack.

Also Rosebud Theatre attracts over 30 thousand people a year to the hamlet again in part because of the retreat from busy, noisy, urban centres.  We feel the construction of a racetrack which will further disrupt our peace and threatens the sensitive environment along the river valley is completely counter productive to what we feel is important to our lives and livelihoods. There must be other places this small group of wealthy race enthusiasts can find that won’t be so detrimental to so many of us living in the vicinity. Please add your voice and clout to our fight against this development.

We look forward to meeting you in person on Monday night at our community hall June 27th

Patrick and Shauna Murphy.

A Letter to the Premier from resident Royal Sproule

First Name:	Royal
Last Name:	Sproule
Postal Code:	T0J 2T0
Email Address:	xxxxx
Your Letter:	I am a landowner and have been a resident of Rosebud since I was 12 years old. I’ve lived most of the following 40 years in this beautiful little hamlet. I have watched Rosebud transform from a run down ghost town to a beautiful thriving hamlet that attracts tens of thousands of tourists who enjoy “getting back to the quiet beauty of the country”. The proposed Bandland Motorsports Racetrack will jeopardize all the things that make our hamlet and valley so beloved. One of our greatest assets is our river valley.  When I was a youngster, the Peregrine falcon was an endangered species and one of the places that was chosen to reintegrate them was our valley, right next to where the racetrack is now proposed. The Peregrine falcon is no longer endangered, thanks to valleys like ours. Bank Swallows, another “at risk species” are also a bird that makes it’s home here. Another great asset that puts Rosebud on the map is Rosebud Theatre. Our many patrons tell us that more than coming to a particular theatrical production, the main reason they frequent Rosebud, is because of the magic of the valley. The peace and quiet. Needless to say, a motorsport racetrack up the valley a few miles will cause sound pollution and jeopardize our arts economy. Please help us save the Rosebud. Royal Sproule Rosebud Landowner p.s. If you would like a canoe trip with me, I’d be happy to take you down the river and I’ll wager that you’ll see wildlife around every corner. The creek is fairly high right now, so we’d have to do it soon. I offered a canoe trip to our MLA Derek Fildebrandt last week. He accepted and now he is on board with our Save the Rosebud Campaign. I hope you take me up on the offer.

A Letter to MLA Derek Fildebrandt from resident Royal Sproule

A Letter to the Premier from Renita Hamm

A Letter to the Premier from Joel Stephanson

A Letter to the Premier from Kristin Ormiston

A Letter to the Premier from resident John Elton

A Letter to MLA Derek Fildebrandt from resident Brenda Schultz

A Letter to MLA Derek Fildebrandt from residents Mark&Sherri Skibsted

A Letter to MLA Derek Fildebrandt from resident Brad Graham

An Open Letter on Noise Issues from Andy Blundell

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:03:38 -0600
From: xxxxx
To: xxxxx
CC: xxxxx
Subject: Noise concerns

Hi John,
I took another look at the Acoustic consultants report after our conversation. Here are my notes …

The racetrack noise might give you a headache. The noise consultant’s reports almost certainly will! I have 3 main areas of concern

Existing racetrack data

The promoters say “There is often a misconception that all motorsports facilities cause a large amount of noise pollution.” If this is the case, why do they provide no empirical evidence of noise levels around existing facilities?

There are hundreds of tracks in North America and I would guess thousands worldwide. If this is a misconception, surely they can give actual observations of noise levels 1 mile downwind of actual facilities. But there is very little data available of the web. What there is suggests 70 db is not unusual. I would suggest questions like

1.      Can you give us a complete list of similar facilities across Canada and/or the US?

2.      For which of these facilities is actual noise information related to peak usage times available?

3.      When can you provide us with a complete list of this information?

Permitted Sound Levels

The ERCB’s Permitted Sound Levels (PSL) in Directive 038 are inappropriate because

a)      The directive aims to not adversely affect indoor noise levels for residents near a facility.

b)      I believe the valley falls into the Directive 038’s definition of a pristine area in which it is necessary to determine the ambient sound level on order to calculate PSL: “A pure, natural area that might have a dwelling but no industrial presence, including energy, agricultural, forestry, manufacturing, recreational, or other industries that already impact the noise environment.”

c)      Directive 038 relates to developments which have already been deemed to be in the public interest and are geographically constrained by the location of mineral resources.

d)      The PSL are not recommended or socially acceptable levels of noise. Under Directive 038 Licensees are encouraged to adopt and incorporate a best practices approach to noise management.

What data is used in the model?

Why does the model not match the number and noise levels of the vehicles envisaged in the application?

The application envisages 100 cars racing at any given time. Why does the data used in the model assume only 70 cars? The model assumes 70 vehicles emitting from 81 to 95 dBA. What would the effect on the model be if each of 100 cars anticipated emitted the 103 dBA permitted under the proposed regulations? Specifically, if the model used 100 cars each emitting 103 dBA, what would the peak noise level be and where would this peak be located?

Figure 3 Modeled Day-Time Noise Levels shows the entirety of the area surrounding the Valley Track having a sound level below 45 dBA.  How is this consistent with the data in Appendix 1 showing a noise level of 124.6 dBA generated by 16 cars on that course alone?

Assuming that there are 100 cars active, 50 on the main course and 25 on each of the others, what would the noise level be at the point on perimeter of the site where the Rosebud River exits? Assuming a prevailing westerly wind, what would the noise level be 1.5km from the perimeter, given the contours of the river valley coulee or ravine?

Given the shape of the river valley, Directive 038 explicitly states that one cannot use the rule of thumb that the noise level 3km will be 6dBA less that at the 1.5km point and at Beynon, approximately 6 km distant, 12 dBA less than at the 1.5km point? How do the proponents propose to model the anticipated noise level at Beynon?

(Directive 038 says “Simplified or other informal calculations are only acceptable for a smaller stationary single source facility without any existing industrial infrastructure and with flat ground between the facility and a single dwelling at a close distance or in remote areas where there are no dwellings within 1.5 km of the facility.”)

Conclusion

The proposed By-law should set explicit limits on permitted noise levels so that affected parties can seek an injunction to prohibit further activity if stipulated levels are exceeded. I would like to suggest a set of automated noise measurement stations on the site perimeter feeding a website on an e.g. hourly basis.

-- 
Andy Blundell
xxxx
Phone xxxx

An Open Letter to Kneehill County from resident Deanne Bertsch

Dear council,

My name is Deanne Bertsch and I live in Kneehill county at #9 hwy and Beynon corner. I am a teacher at SHS and was a teacher in Carbon and I am a contract teacher and artist with Rosebud Theatre, my husband is an accountant with west jet and grew up on a family farm just north of Rosebud, we make this area our home, Cam for 48 years and myself for 20, because we value Rosebud, the beautiful valley, the quiet, rural lifestyle and the values our children will learn growing up in this community. I do not want to see the Motorsport track passed for many reasons:

• increased traffic on the Beynon road which is where I run daily and ride bikes with my seven year old daughters
• I do not want to see industrial impact on the beautiful rosebud river, the surrounding valley and the wetlands. I take my family canoeing down the river to Langlet siding several times a summer
• citizens are terribly opposed
• your responsibility is to the people you represent

In your mission and vision you state:
” we will serve, enhance and promote our community” Please do this by not allowing the Motorsport track.

“Kneehill county values safety and we encourage responsible development that supports resource based economy.”. If the Motorsport track is passed, safety to myself, to my children and to the environment is compromised. The Motorsport track is not supporting resource based economy.

“We promote environmental responsibility and prosperity.” If a Motorsport track is developed the natural environment is compromised and environmental responsibility and prosperity are not promoted.

We encourage positive relationships with our citizens. I feel that Kneehill county Council does great work and I hope you will support me, my family, and my neighbors in accordance to your mission and vision when voting on the Motorsport track. Thank you for representing me in this matter as my government representative and not allowing the Motorsport track to happen.

I would appreciate hearing back from you on this matter.

Sincerely,

Deanne Bertsch

An Open Letter to Reeve Long from resident Joel Stephanson

Dear Reeve Long;

I am writing to let you know of my intense and abiding opposition to the BMR. I feel almost desperate, on behalf of those who live adjacent to the proposed site, and also for my fellow residents of Rosebud.

My reasons for opposing it are many. I will revisit them briefly, in no particular order.

• Noise levels. As professional acoustician Paul Lassen pointed out during the second reading, we should be very concerned about the actual sound level that would be generated from this project, and see BMR’s own calculations as suspect. It could intervere severely with the quality of life and farming for those nearby, and significantly disturb the appeal of Rosebud Centre of the Arts – a beloved cultural landmark for the past 30 years.
• Potential for an influx of hundreds of cars daily, assuming the track is at all successful. This can cause serious traffic and safety problems for farmers and their vehicles, especially when shortcuts are taken.
• Environmental degradation. You will recall Prof. Geoff Holroyd’s assessment of the project, where his work established a much more negative picture of the BMR’s effects on endangered plant and bird species.
• Of the 86 letters council received by the June 6 deadline, 85 of them were opposed.
• Of the numerous speakers at 2nd reading, a vast majority of them were opposed, including everyone who spoke from Rosebud, and everyone who lives on adjacent farms, to my recollection. There is a complication here in that some residents, including those from Rosebud, live in Wheatland county. But I am sure you will agree that each county must take into consideration the effects of its actions on all those who live nearby. We all live downstream, so to speak – and I, for one, hope that our county will always extend consideration and courtesy to Kneehill residents in any of our own big decisions, as we would expect from you.
• As of this moment, a Facebook group called “Residents AGAINST the Badlands Motorsports Resort” has 419 members. Despite this surge in opposition, BMR has not mobilized its own alleged supporters similarly, and only 25 likes are seen on BMR’s Facebook page.
• Tax revenue is a key incentive for this track to go ahead. It worries me that money may be the sole material reason this gets a green light, as it overrides the need to protect livelihood and well-being of area residents. Moreover, once this track gets built, BMR will have an ever-increasing amount of leverage with future county councils. Noise and other regulations may be sacrificed so that this supposed cash cow can stay viable. Maybe they will decide that louder vehicles or racing bikes will need to be allowed; or that events should be held later at night so that they can meet their enormous bottom line. Enforcing clear boundaries with BMR will only get harder once this pristine land is lost, and the county starts to count on them for their revenue.
• On the previous note, building a racetrack will be a risky venture; even moreso when it is done amid a sea of opposition, and when it may have to compete with the proposed Rockyview Motorsports Park much closer to Calgary. And if the BMR fails, what becomes of that once pristine land? It will be sold, and the new buyer will have a newly redesignated plot of land with much less of the scrutiny that BMR has currently. So whether it succeeds or fails, it appears to be a lose-lose for residents.
• Finally, I have read that this project would eliminate 145 acres of viable farmland from Alberta. This runs counter to several tenets of Kneehill’s own development plan. In the words of Alberta Agriculture Agronomist Ross McKenzie, “Society must really get much more serious about protecting our land for future generations.”

Thank you very much for hearing my concerns. Again, I plead with you to vote against the BMR on Tuesday. If it passes, I know that legal counsel has been retained and is looking into means of appealing such a decision. But I hope that, for the good of our two counties, it will not have to come to that.

Sincerely,
Joel Stephanson
Rosebud, AB

An Open Letter to the elected representatives of Kneehill County from Resident Kari Eliuk

Dear Kneehill County Councillors,

We are the residents of the Rosebud area. We are your neighbours. We share so much – landscape, community events, and heritage. Our children play in your parks and swim in your pool – they are friends with your children. We eat in your restaurants and shop in your stores. But our connections run much deeper than that. We hold the same basic principles – we are community minded, family oriented, and honour traditional values. We are intentionally rural – towns, villages, and hamlets which work side by side with our faming neighbours. Some of the residents of this area have been here for generations, as stewards of the land. Others of us moved to these communities because we chose to embrace a lifestyle which values togetherness over money, and connectedness over flashiness. We know from experience that bigger is not better, and that the rat race is not for us. We are part of your community.

We are people who love this land. We hike in the hills, and bring home rocks and flowers and shells in our backpacks. We skate on frozen ponds, gather around campfires, and walk safe and quiet streets late at night. We sit on old church pews and new park benches, listening to frogs and geese and enjoying the peace of our valley. We have collected shards of broken dishes from our yards that we hope were left by the first European settlers in the area, and bones that we pretend are from dinosaurs, but which we know are really from cows. Our primary mode of transportation here in Rosebud is the bicycle (although in winter, it’s not unusual to see someone snowshoeing down the street), and we do a lot of gardening. People with yards share them with people without. We love to see the local wildlife – the yellow finches and woodpeckers and porcupines and moose and foxes and beavers and rabbits and muskrats and coots and salamanders and deer. We had a mother with three fawns that ate out of our compost bin all through one winter.

We also love the arts. I and my family have had the pleasure of attending several musicals in Three Hills, and I expect your families have had the same pleasure in Rosebud. Our choirs have performed jointly, in both locations, and painters from either county have had their work displayed in the galleries and public buildings and at fundraisers of the other. We have worshipped in each other’s churches.

Our family came to Rosebud from Calgary, via Crossfield. We knew we wanted to raise our children outside of the city. We were searching for a community in which our children could have the freedom to spend all day in a group of friends, moving from house to house, or park to yard to pond to hill, but remaining, all the time, under the watchful eyes of people who care about them. We moved to Crossfield and did not find what we were looking for there, and so our search continued. The two centres around which we based our search were Three Hills and Rosebud. After viewing many homes in Three Hills, the perfect property became available in Rosebud, and so our choice was made. I have never regretted our decision until now – I suddenly wish I was a Kneehill ratepayer so that my voice would carry more weight in this racetrack debate.

Make no mistake – the “professionals” who intend to build and use the racetrack have no intention of becoming part of the amazing community to be found in Kneehill. Their online posts are full of derision for the people of this area, the existing facilities, and the lifestyle that we all love. The obviously-less-than-professionals who are posting in the same threads take it even farther and are prejudiced, sexist, and downright offensive. The communities, farmland, and natural beauty of your county are nothing more than inconveniences to them – hurdles in the way of their full enjoyment of the rich man’s sport which they are pursuing. They do not intend to shop in your stores, spend time in your museums and libraries, or befriend you. They will not be your neighbours. They are using you, your land, your roads, and your acquiescence (where others have refused their requests), and all you will get in return is tax money, if indeed the endeavour is successful.

Right now, the people of Rosebud – your neighbours – need your help. Just as we know we could count on you in a time of emergency – just as you know you can count on us at times like this, when, as I write, our volunteer fire department and other community members are helping surrounding communities prepare for the imminent floodwaters. Our peace, our way of life, our environment and wildlife, and, for many, even our livelihoods are being threatened.

The developers and supporters of the Badlands Motorsports Resort would have you believe differently. They have made some claims. Consider:

1. Rosebud is a transient community, and lacking in community spirit.

Yes, Rosebud has a student and otherwise temporary population (not unlike Three Hills). But most of the people who have left, for whatever reason, seem to come back as often as they can. I just had a couple of them walk in my door – one fresh from the floods in the mountains, and one fresh from eight months serving in Africa. Neither of them were born or raised here, and yet here they are, because Rosebud is home to so many people. We love our community. I have never had a need that my neighbours knew about go unfulfilled. We ARE community. Ironically, the CEO accuses those opposed to his scheme of emotional responses, devoid of facts. How can we be both lacking in community spirit, and emotional in our defence of said community? We ARE emotional – we are passionate and desperate! We want to save our lifestyle, and not have it dictated by a few rich people who have no interest in our success or happiness – or yours.

2. The sound will be no louder than a hairdryer.

Even if this were true (which seems unlikely, as their sound testing was not site-specific and didn’t take into account the ease with which sound travels through a valley), it is not something we want. Would you like to have people outside your window on a fresh, summer Saturday morning, while you try to sleep in, turning on and off their hairdryers? How about that amount of noise while you pull weeds, go sledding, talk over the fence with your neighbour. How about in the back of your council meetings and in your workplaces? And, best of all, how about all of the above? Doesn’t sound so good? Don’t worry – they’d be no louder than hair driers. Maybe.

3. The resort will benefit the area’s tourism industry.

Why do tourists – 40,000 of them a year – flock to Rosebud? Is it because they cannot see excellent live performances in the cities or towns in which they live? Of course not. It is because they love to enjoy top-notch theatre and concerts in the idyllic rural surroundings of Rosebud. What will happen when these guests exit the theatre to the sound of revving engines? I think they’ll decide that they might as well stay in the city the next time they have tourism dollars to spend. Rosebud will no longer be the getaway they love. The resort will destroy an already thriving tourism industry, one that is nourished by a community – and surrounding communities – that love the arts produced here. And the destruction of that industry will destroy our hamlet, and everything that has been worked for here.

4. The development will bring dollars into the area.

Have you read the posts online? (http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/badlands-motorsports-resort-first-reading-of-re-zoning-application-approved/showthread.php?s=1740bd18e0986246fecc2661ffac8ac3&threadid=367999&perpage=20&highlight&pagenumber=11) Comments like “severely lacking”, “isn’t going to cut it”, and “what were you thinking when you chose this area”, as well as the intention to develop shopping and other amenities on site, show that this is unlikely to be a benefit of this development. I believe that these people are not looking to spread their wealth throughout your county – they will spend it on site or bring it back home with them. Admittedly, it will bring in tax dollars (again, if successful), but will this be enough to offset the increased costs of road maintenance, crime management, fire support, etc., as well as the cost to the environment and to the well-being your neighbours?

5. The development will draw wealthy professionals, therefore there is no risk of increased crime, public drunkenness, drug abuse, etc.

Again, I call your attention to the thread linked above. Not all motorsports enthusiasts seem to be as trouble-free as has been suggested. In addition, crime, public drunkenness, and drug abuse are not unheard of in wealthy, professional circles.

The Badlands Motorsports Resort seems to have been either extremely wily or extremely lucky in their choice of location right on the corner of your county. They can infringe on the peace of the vast majority of their neighbours without disturbing too many voters in the county that gets to make the decisions. Please, we ask you to think in terms of the larger community, of those who share your values and will be there for you in a crisis, those who are happy to be called your friends and neighbours. Please vote as if this development was going to be within earshot of YOUR home, instead of ours. Please vote against the Badlands Motorsports Resort.

This proposal has already been turned down, I believe in more than one location. Please think about why that is. No one else wanted it. Neither do we. Not In My Back Yard? You got it! We live here for community, fellowship and the arts, not for car racing. Please say, “no thanks” to this proposed invasion.

Sincerely,

Kari Eliuk
Cory Eliuk
Hadden Eliuk
Lachlan Eliuk
Asher Eliuk
Arwen Eliuk

An Open Letter to Elected Officials of Kneehill County from resident Jessica Ernst

June 24, 2013

Dear Elected Officials of Kneehill County,

The extreme rains and flood disaster currently unfolding in Alberta, and past heavy sudden rains and floods in the Rosebud area, make it abundantly clear that the location and steep access for this race track is inappropriate and appears to have been chosen based on something other than sound expertise and fact. The tracks, housing and associated facilities need to be constructed on stable ground, not in an environmentally sensitive, steep river valley and flood plain in the badlands.

The coulees significantly amplify noise. I’ve lived with EnCana’s compressor noise for 10 years now and I find it highly imaginative that the race track developer promises – like  EnCana – the “sound” will be inaudible at Rosebud. The noise will be relentless, especially for those living adjacent to the facility, and traffic noise to and from the facility is likely to be much more invasive.

In my opinion, Kneehill County councillors are conducting themselves in the same bad neighbour way as EnCana:  to conclude that significant impacts to the many living here is acceptable so that a few rich may play invasive, environmentally harmful games with expensive machinery. If the track were needed to provide food or safe water to communities in Wheatland and Kneehill counties, perhaps people may agree that the damages, impacts and liabilities are worth it.

There has been no accountable socio-economic impact assessment – including costs of the environmental degradation, adverse affect to area businesses and farms, repeatedly [repairing] eroded and slumped paved access, and loss of quality of life for area residents. The race track costs may thus outweigh any benefit to rate payers.  Repairs to paved access will quickly eat up millions in tax revenues, notably with the cumulative impacts from heavy drilling and fracing vehicles, and others drawn to the excitement of remote, paved steep valley runs. There has been no accurate assessment of costs to police and rescue for [man] made accidents or natural disasters such as currently taking place in Alberta.  Obviously, the rich who come to play at the private track do not want to pay to maintain or police the access, especially after heavy rains and spring thaw, and erosion and slumping. Thus the county agreed ratepayers will.

This from Page 26 of the Badlands Motorsports Resort Area Structure Plan:

The full extent of the selected route will be maintained by Kneehill County and will be constructed to the most stringent of Kneehill or Wheatland standards with two paved traveling lanes within a 30-metre right-of-way.

This from Page 67:

Paving would be required to allow users of the facility to access the areas of the development within the Valley.

Maintaining remote pavement on unstable terrain is extremely expensive.

Has this question been appropriately answered and the appropriate documents provided to rate payers for their review:

Will the developer be able to get commercial liability insurance at the current badly selected location?

Kneehill County is willing to maintain safe water for the rich at play, but not for ordinary tax-paying citizens living with contaminated water after Encana’s hydraulic fracturing experiments. Reportedly, fresh water to the development will be pipelined from Carbon and the track and related facilities will be closed in winter. Will EnCana then be given, or allowed to purchase, water for drilling and fracing? These matters require complete and appropriate public consultation and disclosure.

There are also the environmental impacts, but it appears that Kneehill County council is looking the other way.

I remind you, you are elected officials, not developers. You represent the voice of the people. We are speaking – loudly. We say no.

I respectfully request that you accept my submission and acknowledge receipt of it. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jessica Ernst

Refer also to the supporting information below.

 http://www.ibc.ca/en/natural_disasters/documents/mcbean_report.pdf

Alberta flood zone development was a mistake, former MLA says
2006 flood report called for the end of land sales in known flood risk areas
by Mark Gollom, CBC News, 23, 2013

2006 Provincial Flood Mitigation Report

report at link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/06/21/calgary-flooding-groeneveld-report.html
A former Alberta MLA who headed up a flood mitigation task force after the 2005 floods says new development should not have been allowed to spring up in the flood zones.

“The one thing they could have done … they should have stopped building some housing and buildings on the flood plains. And that was a strong part of that report,” George Groeneveld, who chaired the flood mitigation committee and report, told CBC News.

“If you’re going to build in those areas, you take on the responsibility yourself. That to me was the strength of the report, stop building where we shouldn’t be building.”

The 2006 Provincial Flood Mitigation Report, which was just released last year, recommended a cessation of the sale of Crown lands in known flood risk areas.

“Selling lands in flood risk areas is the opposite of flood mitigation,” the report stated. “The province loses its say in the use of these lands and any protective measures would need to be taken through cumbersome mechanisms such as legislation or regulations.

“Undeveloped flood plains are the natural and most effective form of flood mitigation, and this recommendation will protect those areas.”

Sale of flood-prone Crown lands creates the potential “for increased financial liability for the province in terms of Disaster Recovery Program funding that must outweigh the short-tem financial benefits of the sale,” the report stated.

With the demand high to live in such scenic areas, along with a new source of tax revenue from properties, Groeneveld said he understands the pressure on the municipalities to sell.

“Once developers buy that land, it takes real political will from the municipal governments to shut them down and say ‘No, you can’t do it,'” said Groeneveld, who served eight years as the Tory MLA for Highwood.

The report also recommended that disaster recovery payments for “new inappropriate development in flood risk areas” be prohibited.

“To me that was the real issue with the report, if you’re going to [build there] the individuals themselves are responsible,” he said. “When you have a disaster, don’t be looking for the government to bail you out when you build in these areas.”

As well, the report recommended a notification system be established that informs potential buyers that the property is located in a flood-risk area.

Groeneveld said he was disappointed that the report was never released during his time in government and that by the time it was released it was “so far after the fact that a lot of the report had become redundant.”

The report also recommended the completion of flood risk maps for urban areas in the province; a program to ensure those maps are updated; the identification of priority rural flood risk areas that require flood risk mapping; and making historic flood information available to the public on a website.