Before trying to fix a watershed we must first not only determine what is wrong with it, but also why it is no longer healthy. In the past the accepted methodology of watershed restoration was to seek out the parts of the watershed’s rivers and streams that were not functioning properly and fix them. This reminds me of the man that went to see his doctor because every time the man raised his arm over his head it caused great pain. In the doctor’s office, the man demonstrated the arm position that caused the pain and asked the doctor what was he should do. The doctor told him not to raise his arm over his head and then billed him for the visit. We can not continue to treat the symptoms of unhealthy watersheds. Just like the man with the bad arm, we will have to continue to see the doctor and pay the bills. Treat the problem and the symptoms will disappear.

When watershed restoration is approached from this new perspective it is easy to see that the prescription for a healthy watershed will differ for each one. But even though the prescriptions are different, the means of determining that prescription can be generalized for most watersheds. Here is my five-step approach to determining that prescription.

1. Get to know the entire watershed. This is essential in determining what parts of the watershed actually need help. Doctors do not normally prescribe medications for patients before they get to know the body they are treating, so why should treating a watershed be any different?
   
2. Fix the watershed’s ability to heal itself. As an example of this, take the large woody debris (LWD) issue. Science has come to discover that healthy rivers and streams need LWD in the water flow to provide essential elements of habit for fish. When we find streams and rivers that are deficient in LWD content, we find ways to put wood back in the stream. What we should be doing is trying to find out why the watershed isn’t able to produce the LWD in quantities sufficient to create good habitat. One reason we treat this particular symptom instead of the problem is the power of the logging companies. Instead of treating the problem by changing logging practices, the problem is mitigated by numerous projects that put wood back into the streams artificially. Artificial projects will never create habitat of the same quality as nature. University of Washington professor Jim Karr was quoted in What the River Reveals as saying "We manage the people, not the land. Northwest river systems have been producing salmon for millennia. We need to manage people so natural systems can make salmon as they’ve done for a long time." We must let nature do the work that it knows how to do and that means helping the watershed recover it’s ability to heal itself.
   
3. Save the good stuff first, then worry about the rest. This may sound callous, but it the only way to ensure that there is at least some good habitat for fish and wildlife. If we spent our time and efforts trying to bring back what is considered to be the worst areas of the watershed, the possibility exists that the good parts would decline. This could send the watershed into a spiral with good habitat declining and bad habitat improving – causing no net gain overall.
   
4. Help reconnect the residents to the watershed. People need to see that they are a part of the problem. The things that we do in our everyday life effect the watersheds we live in. The cleaners and chemical we use in our houses, the fertilizers we put on our lawns, and the garbage we produce all put pressure on our ecosystems. We need to realize that even household chemicals are harmful, lush green lawns are not as important as clean water, and our landfills are filling quickly. While it sounds like we are doing all the damage, we can coexist with our watersheds. The difficult part of this is that it is going to require changes in the way we live – and people by nature are resistant to change.
   
5. Design plans to work long term – do not expect overnight miracles. It took us almost 100 years to get ourselves into this situation so we can’t expect the problems to be cured overnight. Unfortunately, when state governments shell out money for restoration programs, they need to see results to continue the funding. The effects of restoration programs take years to be noticed. Since salmon usually spend about four years in the ocean, the effects of a salmon habitat restoration program would take at least that long to reap any benefits. When state money is dolled out yearly or even biannually, the impression may be that the project has failed. We must be patient. Government agencies and other groups responsible for restoration projects must base their projects on the best available science and give it time to work.