Area 26D is bounded by the Tacoma Narrows bridge on the south and a line drawn through the north end of Vashon Island on the north. Looks like Puyallup territory to me. U & A? Can't say. Have shellfish U & A's ever been adopted by the court? (additional information welcome).

Regarding filing regulations under 4.6 of the Shellfish Implementation Plan - I'm not sure filing regulations under this provision is as nefarious as some might think. The implementation plan foresees that the co-managers will develop interim and long-term management plans for all the shellfish resources that will guide all fisheries. In the absence of those plans, the only way to open fisheries by either party is under section 4.6. That section also describes a time frame necessary to open fisheries and what information and documentation that warrants a fishery opening needs to be provided to applicable co-manager(s) to proceed with a fishery. There is also a section 4.7 of the plan that provides a procedure for contesting and resolving disagreements, so there is no reason that a disagreement cannot be resolved outside the boundaries of some area/species/fishery plan in a manner consistent with conservation or sharing of the resource.

I have never been involved in shellfish management under this implementation order (hopefully someone who has can correct any faulty thinking I have), but I was involved with management of finfish resources under U.S. v. WA. so I have some experience with court orders and how we make or don't make them work. My experience there tells me that development of these expected long-term management plans (that would negate the need to file a fishery opening under Section 4.6) can take a long time, in fact I'm not sure that all Puget Sound regions have to date developed the long-term finfish management plans foreseen in the original salmon and steelhead orders (maybe carcassman or Curt can correct me). How many years after the original decision? (again, I could be off base here - just sharing thoughts). Whether I am exactly right about that or not, I do know that a whole lot of years of finfish fisheries went on without those plans. Additionally, there are a lot of things that could prevent having agreed to plans at any given time. For instance, right now I could certainly see how the co-managers learning how to deal with communication and planning under the limitations of COVID-19 could prevent having an agreed to annual management plan for this particular Puyallup fishery. (again, sort of thinking out loud based on other experiences).

The last thought is regarding whether or not WDFW ever uses Section 4.6 (or perhaps more telling, Section 4.7 to contest a fishery) is beyond my ability to find out. (Although if you think about it for a second, it is obvious that they HAVE used that provision because non-treaty fisheries certainly occurred soon after this court order, certainly before any/all of the management plans could be fully developed.) WDFW regs that they share with us would not need a reference to the implementation plan. Only the regulations that they share with the tribes would need to reference that section (outside an agreed to plan). I don't have access to their legal communication with the tribes about fishery openings, so that is a project for someone else if interested. Maybe carcassman knows - hey, do they still communicate by TWX? (He will get that).