Maryland’s plan for reducing pollution flowing into the Chesapeake Bay, which was due to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by midnight Thursday, is likely to be revised with more detail before the federal agency decides in July whether and how to alter it.

Environmental groups, meanwhile, say the state’s local governments, whose individual documents were used by the Maryland Department of the Environment to craft the statewide Watershed Implementation Plan, must commit to more specific pollution-reduction strategies and come up with ways to pay for them.

“Apart from a few exceptions, they are weak across the board,” said Claudia Friedetzky, conservation representative with the Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club, speaking of county plans submitted by the Nov. 18 deadline that the Sierra Club was able to review.

Environmentalists say excessive nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment are major Bay pollutants. They have identified agricultural runoff, sewage treatment plants, septic systems, lawn fertilizers and vehicle exhaust as among the culprits.

Baltimore County’s plans stood out as excellent for the level of detail and scientific underpinnings, Friedetzky said.

St. Mary’s and Dorchester counties were good because they identified solid next steps, she said.

Three county plans were not reviewed. Montgomery’s plan was not posted online but is similar to an earlier plan and does contain specific strategies, according to county environmental officials.

Calvert County missed the deadline because its commissioners did not approve a plan until Tuesday, said David Brownlee, Calvert’s principal environmental planner.

Like many counties, Calvert is not committing to spending on the plan yet, Brownlee said, noting that the estimated cost for the county is about $1.3 billion through 2020, a substantial burden on a jurisdiction whose most recent annual operating budget was $272.7 million.

The state has not received a plan from Worcester County either, MDE spokeswoman Samantha Kappalman said Thursday.

All local governments put a lot of effort into the plans, but some have more resources than others and all are a “work in progress,” MDE Secretary Robert Summers said Thursday.

Where the local plans fell short MDE “filled in the gaps with aspects of our original Phase One plan,” Summers said.

Last year, the EPA said Maryland’s first draft of the federally mandated Watershed Implementation Plan was the strongest of all the jurisdictions’ plans in the Chesapeake watershed.

Summers said Thursday that “local governments are very much concerned about controlling their own destiny, [and the local watershed plan] was their opportunity” Summers said.

Counties had difficulty because mandated pollution limits promised in June did not get to them until the EPA provided them in August, said Leslie Knapp Jr., associate director for the Maryland Association of Counties. Also, in some cases, the limits were revised shortly before the local plan deadline to require much more pollution reduction, he said.

Although pollution reductions associated with stormwater runoff and wastewater treatment plants will not be easy for counties to pay for, the delays and changes made factoring in costs even more difficult, Knapp said.

Local governments and agricultural interests also question the accuracy of EPA models used to calculate how and where pollution is added and reduced.

Summers said models are being refined as more information is gathered, including that from local governments.

“It’s important to note that no one will do more restoration than needs to be done,” Summers said, adding that refining the models “has not been and should not be a barrier for the counties to put their plan together.”

Summers said improvements that stop damaging runoff into the Bay first benefit local streams and groundwater supplies.

“This is bigger than the Bay,” he said.

The American Farm Bureau Federation contends that EPA-mandated limits on pollutants going into the Bay from each jurisdiction have “unlawfully usurped” responsibilities reserved for the states under the Clean Water Act.

Farm organizations also point to differences in the EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture models for the Chesapeake watershed that they say cast doubt on data and assumption about farm practices.

Staff Writer Andrew Ujifusa contributed to this report.

mhyslop@gazette.net