Response to BiOp Workgroup comments. There is currently no process identified for the assessment and optimization of CWT tagging rates, and to my knowledge there have never been precision targets identified for coded wire tagging. I agree that this issue needs to be addressed and in the proposal we explained how ODFW intends to identify appropriate tagging levels (including the establishment of an internal workgroup). However, I am not aware of a forum for discussing these issues on a basinwide basis, nor are we aware of the BiOp RM&E collaboration workgroup cited in the comments. We would fully support involvement in such a group but until one is identified we cannot explicity identify working with them. Perhaps this process could be identified as part of the RM&E review and be included in the contracting agreement. At present, tagging levels are based on the need to monitor hatchery program performance. Without input from managers using the data for recovery purposes it is difficult to plan the program accordingly, thus I would encourage recovery planners to be involved in the process.

BiOp RM&E Workgroups: After review of the RPAs identified for deletion we don't have a strong objection for their removal. However, I should point out that the reason these were included relates to the need for co-ordination identified by the workgroup (above). We believe there should be standard practices for determining appropriate group sizes as part of ongoing monitoring and there should be a forum for determining what the CWT data will be used for.