dismissed as well. In relevant part, the APA provides that “[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 704 (emphasis added). “[Although the primary thrust of § 704 was to codify the exhaustion requirement, the provision as enacted also makes it clear that Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action.” Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 903, 108 S.Ct. 2722, 101 L.Ed.2d 749 (1988). Because, as revealed in the complaint, the APA claim duplicates the CWA claim, review is not available under the APA. See Compl. at Counts 3-5; see also Hayes v. Whitman, 264 F.3d 1017, 1025 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Basel Action Network v. Maritime Admin., 370
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 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 district courts are without jurisdiction to review preenforcement orders issued under the clean water act holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act