to pass upon such fundamental issues of governmental structure. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 241, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (noting a “general rule of constitutional avoidance” (citations omitted)). D. The APA Claim The plaintiffs also bring a claim under the APA. “Although the APA does not directly grant jurisdiction, the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, regardless of whether the APA of its own force may serve as a jurisdictional predicate.” Jama v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 760 F.3d 490, 494 (6th Cir.2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Unlike the CWA claim, the court addresses the APA claim on the merits. Like the CWA claim, this claim must Supp.2d 57, 76 (D.D.C.2005) (<HOLDING>). The APA claim also fails as a matter of law
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 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 because review of plaintiffs claim is available under the clean water act it is not subject to review under the apa empha sis in original citations omitted holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa 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