Prioritizing investments in restoration, risk reduction, and conservation programs is an important part of the planning process to develop strategies for a wide range of resource management issues in the US and elsewhere (Ball et al., 2009; Noss et al., 2009; Kukkala and Moilanen, 2013; Chazdon and Guariguata, 2018; Pohjanmies et al., 2019; Strassburg et al., 2020; Duchardt et al., 2021). Prioritization systems have been developed for application at a range of scales, and typically involve multiple objectives and various schemes for optimization and tradeoff analyses (Noss et al., 2009). Spatial considerations play an increasingly important role in most if not all of these planning systems to meet various landscape adjacency and connectivity constraints over space and time. (De Pellegrin Llorente et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2020). Rigorous prioritization is warranted given that resources are generally limited and wide spatial variation in management targets and outcomes exists in many ecosystems of concern. Incorrect or non-optimal prioritization can contribute to failed objectives and wasted resources (Brudvig, 2017; Iftekhar et al., 2017). Integrating priorities into planning can help communicate restoration investment needs and outcomes to stakeholders in collaborative planning efforts (Eaton et al., 2019; Riddell et al., 2019).