Governor Glendening stated: "Today, the nation's leading private and non-profit conservation organizations have taken the final step to ensure the preservation of one of Maryland's most pristine and fragile ecosystems."

When local citizens started to work for its preservation in 1990, it seemed even to some sympathizers as a doomed fight against a politically wired done deal a perception that was not unreasonable. But Chapman Forest was too good to lose. It has over two miles of Potomac River shoreline, and is remarkable for its size, its diverse and high-quality habitat, its proximity to Washington. It is vital to the water quality of Mattawoman Creek. It is a keystone maintaining the ecological integrity of a 20,000-acre bioreserve of preserved lands on both sides of the Potomac, protecting them from degradation by fragmentation.

Just as it was obvious that building a 2,250 acre city on the Potomac River shoreline less than an hour's drive from Washington could make some people rich, it was also obvious to most people, as they learned the facts, that Chapman Forest was a place to take a stand for the environment, against sprawl, and for solid democratic process. The Chapman Forest controversy helped inspire what is now known as Maryland's Smart Growth program.

In 1989, a Chicago real estate company bought Chapman Forest, and began to promote a huge development proposal they called "Chapman's Landing." Supporters of preservation abandoned the "Chapman's Landing" name which the developers scavenged from the site's history it refers to an 18th century ferry landing - but which obscured the dominant fact about this place, that makes it so preservation-worthy: it is a large forest, important above all else for its biodiversity.

As the struggle evolved over the years, corporate responsibility issues played a major role. Although local politicians touted "Chapman's Landing" as a panacea, publicly available information seemed to show that the developers were more in a position to beg for help, rather than to offer help.

For example, by the time citizens organized eight years ago, the owning company's stock had already plummeted from $10 per share to under fifty cents. The company's financial weakness eventually forced it to merge with a Norwegian-run trawling company that has been the target of international environmental campaigns because of what are considered predatory fishing practices.

The developers met with county planners but were quiet about their plans until 1990 when they formally began their quest for all the necessary permits and entitlements. During this period the county was undertaking the periodic review and revising of its basic planning documents, as required by State law.

While working on these county wide plans, county officials devoted a great deal of its planning resources clearing the way for the Chapman's Landing development. Local officials no doubt expected opposition, but until the final State purchase of the land this year continued to underestimate the strength and determination of the preservation movement.

From 1990 until 1995, the activist energy to save Chapman Forest came mostly from local citizens, who had formed the Friends of Mount Aventine (Mount Aventine is the name of the historical estate of the Chapman Family) although from the beginning individuals and organizations from outside the area gave important help. Notably, the Maryland Conservation Council and Maryland Bass Federation gave key support early on. In fact, in 1991 the Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter, was the first organization to explicitly state the goal of saving the entire Chapman Forest.

Early in 1995, the area Sierra clubs became increasingly involved, with a great deal of direction and support coming from the Appalachian Regional Office in Annapolis. This was the key that unlocked the door to the forging of a coalition. Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund undertook representing the Friends of Mount Aventine in their interest in preventing a federal wetland permit that the Chapman's Landing developers needed to develop the forest.

Maryland Native Plant Society, Clean Water Action, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the National Audubon Society, and scores of other organizations, big and small, pitched in, and informed their members. A constituency for preservation grew and grew. The Campaign to Preserve Chapman Forest formed to guide a coordinated approach to the mutually-desired goal.

Senator Mike Miller played a critical role in August of 1997 when he declared himself an advocate of saving Chapman Forest.

Beginning in the last few months of 1997, Governor Glendening's role continued to grow. By the Summer of 1998, Gov. Glendening, reacting to strong citizen pressure and with the help of a large state budget surplus made a commitment to save most of Chapman Forest. But this state intervention was almost not enough.

The Charles county government had little understanding of the ecological significance of Chapman Forest. Even while the State was negotiating to purchase the land, the county continued to grant the developers permits, even though conditions the County itself had specified had not been met. Meanwhile, large and constantly growing constituencies on both inside and outside of Charles County called for preservation.

At the end of 1997 the tide began to turn. In 1998 the state made its commitment to purchase most of the site for $25.3 million and finally in late October the Conservation Fund was able to secure a $3.2 million gift from the Richard King Mellon Foundation. As a result, the entire Chapman Forest tract was purchased.

The State has given every indication of understanding the ecological value of the land and the need for appropriate management of it. The Campaign to Preserve Chapman Forest remains engaged and is vigilant to make sure that its biodiversity is protected, while the public gets full appropriate educational and recreational use oriented to nature and history.

Thank you for helping make this victory possible. Please mark your calendar for Sunday, January 31, when we will celebrate at the Bryans Road firehouse. Details will be posted on our website www.radix.net/~foma - and otherwise publicized as they are developed.

Think of two six lane drawbridges with up to twenty lanes when one counts the merge lanes. Alexandria, Virginia claims, it would dominate and destroy the city's unique historic aspect. This giant bridge would also effectively mark the Washington D C and Maryland shorelines of the Potomac as a sacrifice zone, especially in combination with a 2,000 bed maximum security prison proposed for Oxon Cove. For the cove south of the monster bridge the Peterson Company of Virginia is proposing a 24-hour gated "entertainment center" of over 7 million square feet, a "destination" center, a (sacred) Cash Cow for Prince George's County, expecting up to 75 thousand visitors a day. Why will they go there? What will attract them? Is this a gamble we want to take?

Think of two five-lane tunnels with an accompanying metro tunnel. The Maryland side metro terminal would be located in the heart of Oxon Hill, which has suffered from disinvestment and urgently needs redevelopment. Knock down the big strip mall that developer Peterson also owns and put up a metro mall to service the community and everyone on the 210 corridor. Sustainable, needed upscale economic development here will serve not only developers and merchants, but also social justice interests. This approach takes intense development away from the shoreline of the Potomac River, our newly chosen American Heritage River, allowing its restoration.

The existing Wilson Bridge will be transformed into a wonderful pedestrian clean air promenade connecting the coves in Maryland and Washington into a public access community asset. The Potomac Heritage trail that has long been promised on the Maryland/D C side of the river can become a reality. The pedestrian landscaped bridge with amenities would become one of the highlights of the Washington Metropolitan Region. The "better vision" would put a stop to the disinvestment in lower Prince George's County. The community and elected leaders could be proud of protecting the river and changing the trend regarding this area's quality of life.