ORDER

STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge.

The plaintiffs and the EPA1 move (Docs. 35, 37) for summary judgment on Counts III-V. Because a June 4, 2015 order (Doc. 46) dismisses Count III, the motions (Docs. 35, 37) for summary judgment on Count III are DENIED AS MOOT. Further, because the EPA's motion repeats in favor of Count IV an argument rejected in the June 4, 2014 order, the EPA's motion (Doc. 37) for summary judgment on Count IV is DENIED. The remainder of this order resolves the plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 35) for summary judgment on Counts IV and V and the EPA's motion (Doc. 37) for summary judgment on Count V. The State of Florida, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the FDEP), and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services intervene (Doc. 38) as defendants and oppose (Doc. 41) the plaintiffs' motion.

Under Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has the discretion to determine whether "a revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of" the Clean Water Act. On October 2, 2014, Cindy Davis, a plaintiff in this action, petitioned the EPA "to initiate rulemaking to promulgate the necessary revisions to [the FDEP's] antidegradation water quality standards." (Doc. 16-1 at 1) The EPA has not responded to the petition. The plaintiffs argue that the EPA "unreasonably delayed"2 performing (1) a duty to furnish an "adequate explanation" for denying the petition (Count IV)3 and (2) a duty to respond to the petition "within a reasonable time" (Count V).4

The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment5 states, "It is undisputed [that] EPA has not taken any agency action on Mrs. Davis's October 2, 2014 petition to EPA."6 (Doc. 35 at 24) However, neither the complaint nor the motion explains how the EPA's waiting approximately two and a half months7 to respond to the petition constitutes "unreasonable delay."

"In the context of a claim of unreasonable delay, the first stage of judicial inquiry is to consider whether the agency's delay is so egregious as to warrant mandamus." Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Edwards, J.); accord Ren v. Mueller, 2008 WL 191010, at *10 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2008) (Fawsett, J.). Nothing in the record suggests that the EPA's two-and-a-half-month delay was unreasonable. Indeed, the EPA explains that the EPA "has been addressing a variety of competing priorities" and that "EPA has the discretion to prioritize its actions taken under the [Clean Water Act], and is owed deference as to such prioritization." (Doc. 37 at 18-20) See Gulf Restoration Network v. McCarthy, 783 F.3d 227, 244 (5th Cir. 2015) (Higginbotham, J.) ("[W]hen a statute sets out competing considerations, agencies are generally given discretion to choose how to best give effect to those mandates."). Further, the EPA "anticipates that it will respond to . . . [the petition] by the end of July 2015, less than ten months after receiving the . . . petition." (Doc. 37 at 17) See National Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229, 1239 (11th Cir. 2003) (determining that an agency "is not presently `withholding or delaying' final action" based on, among other factors, the agency's assurance that "it will reach a final decision . . . by `mid-May'").

Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 35) for summary judgment on Counts IV and V is DENIED. The EPA's motion (Doc. 37) for summary judgment on Count V is GRANTED. No later JUNE 30, 2015, within five pages, the plaintiffs must explain how the EPA has "unreasonably delayed" either (1) "making a necessity determination" or (2) furnishing an "adequate explanation" for denying the petition. See Gulf Restoration Network, 783 F.3d at 243. Failure to comply with this requirement will result without further notice in a judgment on Count IV in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.