U.S. Geological Survey Science—Improving 

the Value of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Congress directed the Federal Government to work with States to 

restore the Nation’s largest estuary.

Chesapeake Bay restoration 

provides important economic 

and ecological benefits:

■ 18 million people live and 

work in the Bay watershed 

and enjoy its benefits.

■ 3,600 types of fish, wildlife, and plants underpin the 

economic value of the Bay 

ecosystem.

■ Poor water quality and habitat loss threaten restoration 

and negatively impact the 

economy.

■ 10 Goals to meet by 2025 

through the Chesapeake 

Bay Program, a voluntary 

partnership.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Water quality and lands

Recreation, fishing, boating

Agricultural

Commercial fisheries

Shipping

Restoration

investments

~$1.7 billion

Economic value

>$100 billion

State Governments (1.23 billion)Federal (0.536 billion)

Economic value, in billions of dollars

Annual economic value and restoration investments. 

Sources: Phillips and McGee, 2014; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

2015; and Office of Management and Budget, 2016.

Photograph credits: Top; A boat floating on Chesapeake 

Bay, by Jane Hawkey, IAN Image Library (www.ian.umces.

edu/imagelibrary/).Middle; A family fishing, by U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Bottom; Unhealthy fish, by USGS.

USGS science is the foundation 

to assess progress and focus 

resources where they are most 

effective.

■ Partners use our science every day. 

■ We monitor and analyze:

• Fish, wildlife, and habitat

• Water quality

• Land-use and environmental 

change

■ USGS spends $12M on science 

activities, which is provided by 

multiple USGS programs.

■ Our science helps improve the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed and 

informs other national efforts.

Present Future 

(Modified from Phillips, 2006)

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Fact Sheet 2017–3031

May 2017
MARYLAND

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

D.C.

DELAWARE

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

42°

40°

38°

80° 78° 76°

Trend direction

No trend

Improving

Degrading

Average load, in pounds 

per acre

Watershed

1.19 to 6.88

6.89 to 13.75

13.76 to 33.44

EXPLANATION

Susquehanna River

Eastern Shore

Western Shore

Potomac River

Rappahannock River

York River

James River

Squares with black 

outlines are yields 

based on 

2010–2014

Chesapeake Bay

Chesapeake Bay

watershed boundary

Map area

Base map from U.S. 

Geological Survey digital 

data, various scales, 

variously dated

Albers Equal-Area 

Conic projection

North American

Datum of 1983

River monitoring of total nitrogen per acre loads and 

trends from 2005–2014.

Improving trends

Degrading trends

Total

nitrogen

trends

discernible

No

Improving trends

Degrading

trends

Total

phosphorus

trends

discernible

No

Water-quality patterns from 2005–2014.

Map and graphs source: Moyer and 

Blomquist, 2016.

Photograph credits: Top; 

Baltimore, Md., area along 

Chesapeake Bay by Jane 

Thomas, IAN Image Library 

(www.ian.umces.edu/

imagelibrary/). Bottom; 

Agricultural area, by USGS.

References Cited

Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Baltimore and Norfolk Districts Section 905 

(b) Analysis, 2015, accessed April 17, 2017, at http://www.

nab.usace.army.mil/Portals/63/docs/Civil%20Works/CBCP/

Final_Chesapeake_Bay_905_b_%20Report_2015_Feb.

pdf?ver=2016-08-10-093155-190.

Moyer, D.L., and Blomquist, J.D., 2016, Summary of nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads and trends measured 

at the Chesapeake Bay nontidal network stations: Water year 2014 

update, accessed February 3, 2016, at http://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/data/NTN%20

Load%20and%20Trend%20Summary%202014.pdf.

Office of Management and Budget, Chesapeake Bay Restoration Spending Crosscut: 

Report to Congress, 2016, 30 p., accessed April 17, 2017, at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/

channel_files/23874/cbara_chesapeake_bay_crosscut_report_final_(12.06.16).pdf.

Phillips, S.W., 2006, U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay studies: Scientific solutions 

for a healthy bay and watershed: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2006–3046, 4 p., accessed 

April 17, 2017, at https://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/fs-2006-3046/fs-2006-3046.pdf.

Phillips, Spencer, and McGee, Beth, 2014, The economic benefits of cleaning up the 

Chesapeake: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 56 p., accessed April 17, 2017, at http://www.cbf.org/

document.doc?id=2258.

By Scott Phillips (swphilli@usgs.gov), 

Kenneth Hyer (kenhyer@usgs.gov), and 

Elizabeth Goldbaum (egoldbaum@usgs.gov)

For more information, visit the USGS

Chesapeake Bay Activities website at 

https://chesapeake.usgs.gov/

ISSN 2327-6916 (print)

ISSN 2327-6932 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20173031