apparently blocks the sunlight necessary for the growth of the sea grass on which the turtles feed and promotes the growth of algae, which smothers the sea grass beds. This “degrades and ultimately kills those grasses ... and will cause the[ ] turtles to either abandon this habitat or starve.” Plaintiffs Appellate Brief at 20. The regulations implementing the ESA instruct that the Secretary of Commerce, in addition to the Secretary of the Interior, has jurisdiction over the turtles named in plaintiffs’ present action. Providing notice to the responsible Secretaries), which the relevant regulations indicate to be both the Secretary of Commerce and the Interior, is a prerequisite to suit. See Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 31, 110 S.Ct. 304, 311-12, 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1068,
holding that compliance with analogous notice provision of the resource conservation and recovery act rcra was a mandatory condition precedent to suit holding notice provision in rcra and clean water act are virtually identical and citizens notice to violators under either act must strictly comply with statutory notice requirements holding that rcras notice provision is a condition precedent to all claims holding that an identical notice requirement in resource conservation and recovery act was a mandatory precondition to suit holding that clean water acts notice provision is a condition precedent to all claims