that a plaintiff may recover attorneys’ fees for claims that are jurisdictionally based on the CWA— i.e., CWA causes of action — even though such claims may be adjudicated under APA review standards. The claims in Hanson were filed as CWA claims and remained CWA claims despite the use of the APA review standard. Put differently, a court’s use of the APA standard in reviewing a CWA claim does not transform that claim into an APA claim for fee-shifting purposes. Thus, Hanson, applied here, only compels the conclusion that plaintiffs are not barred from recovering attorneys’ fees for their CWA and ESA claims, even though those claims were or would have been reviewed under APA standards. See American Canoe Ass’n, Inc. v. EPA, 46 F.Supp.2d 473, 475-76 (E.D.Va.1999) (“American Canoe II”) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ APA claims, however, stand on a
holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act holding that under the apa exhaustion is a prerequisite to judicial review when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review so long as the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review holding that judicial review under the apa is precluded when a remedy is available under a citizen suit provision of an environmental statute citations omitted holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record