I know what the existing U & A's are. My point about U & A is that some tribes fished for shellfish in different areas and with different regularity than they fished for finfish, and in reading the arguments for existing boundaries, salmon was the driver in the discussion. Access to different areas today would likely still be controlled by primary rights of other tribes, but I would not be surprised if it were opened up for discussion that there would be some significant differences in U & A's that would cut across the boundaries of the existing ones. For instance the proximity of southern Hood Canal and southern Puget Sound (Areas 12 and 13 for finfish respectively) would be an interesting discussion, going both ways.

The regional plans that I am referring to were called for in the broader Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan. They were called Comprehensive Regional Resource Management Plans (or something of that nature), e.g. the Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan. To my knowledge not every region has yet to develop one despite being required.