Setting Priorities
1. Involving managers, using teams
Because establishing priorities in land management is a subjective process, different people will list
the same species in different priority order. For a manager, the highest priority species may be the one
that conflicts with the dominant commodity activity. For the botanist, the highest priority species may
be the rarest one. Legal direction, existing plans, and pet projects may all conflict with priorities that
would result from a strict following of biological criteria. Because the setting of priorities is
subjective, we recommend they be set by a team, or at a minimum, with input from management and
other specialists. Solicit input from others outside of the agency as well, such as from Native Plant
Society members and commodity groups. Setting priorities is a situation-specific activity. The lists of
criteria that follow are not meant to be exhaustive; there may be other criteria important to your
specific situation.
2. Criteria for species comparisons
Rank. Some approaches have utilized the conservation status or rank assigned a species, such as from
one of the systems. Note that in many systems, this rank is already a composite of criteria. For
example, the ranking used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service combines taxonomic distinctness
with the magnitude and imminence of the threat.
Rarity. Rarity relates to population size, number of populations, and distribution of populations across
the landscape. In comparing species, perhaps the most useful aspect of rarity for monitoring is the
number of populations.
A species restricted to a single large population is at more risk than one with fewer total numbers
distributed in several populations. Similarly, populations clustered in a small area may all be affected
by the same threat, while populations that are widely distributed are less likely to be affected by a
single impact.
Taxonomic distinctness. A species that is the only representative in its family would rank above one
that is the only representative in its genus, which would rank above a species that occurs in a genus
with many species. The concept behind this ranking is that the taxonomic distinctness of a single-
species family correlates with high genetic uniqueness. A subspecies or variety would for the same
reasons be considered of less value. A drawback to this approach is that taxonomic divisions are
largely based on morphological differences and may not directly relate to genetic diversity.
Sensitivity to threats. Species vary in their sensitivity to threats depending on their biology and
ecology. Species with a long-lived seed bank are buffered from population declines because a single
good germination year can function as a rescue. Species with populations that vary widely from year
to year but lack a seed bank are more prone to local extinction. Species that are limited to
midsuccessional stages are vulnerable to both disturbance and succession caused by lack of
disturbance. Species dependent on other species for pollination or seed dissemination are more
sensitive than those that are wind-pollinated and dispersed. Species that have exacting habitat
requirements are more sensitive than those that are more cosmopolitan in habitat.
Known declines. Species with known declines based on monitoring or observation are more
important for monitoring and management than species that are considered stable.
Extent of threats. Threats can be evaluated in terms of scale and intensity. Scale describes the
percentage of the populations affected and the distribution of threats across the landscape. Intensity
describes the degree to which populations are affected by threats (e.g., extirpation of the
population, mortality of a few individuals).
Immediacy of threats. The rate at which threats may occur and populations decline is another
important consideration. Species or populations with ongoing or immediate threats would rank
higher than those with potential threats.
Conflict. The degree of management conflict between potential conservation actions and existing or
alternative uses (usually commercial) may be an important consideration in prioritizing populations.
The degree of conflict may also dictate the form of monitoring (high conflict situations may require
quantitative monitoring or even research into cause and effect).
Monitoring difficulty. Monitoring some types of plants, such as annuals and geophytes, can be nearly
impossible due to temporal and spatial variability. Some species, such as those found on cliffs, are
difficult to access. Monitoring species growing on fragile sites, such as erosive slopes or semi-aquatic
habitats, may cause unacceptable investigator impacts.
Availability of management actions. If no management options are available, resources should be
directed toward other species with management alternatives. Recovery potential. Some species will
only recover with a large expenditure of resources, while others have high recovery potential. You
may choose to focus on the species with the highest potential, especially if several species could be
managed for recovery with the same resources required for one.
Public interest. The fact that birds and mammals (e.g., bald eagles and grizzly bears) corner vastly
more recovery resources than amphibians or invertebrates is largely a result of this factor. A
common orchid will have more public support and interest than a rare algae. Potential for crisis.
Crisis can be defined in biological terms (potential for extinction) and in management terms
(potential for politically heated conflict).
3. Criteria for population comparison Population size. Investing in larger populations may be a better
conservation strategy than salvaging small populations. Larger populations are better able to
weather annual variability, and they provide a larger buffer for decline. Conversely, it may be more
important in some situations to monitor small populations because they are more prone to
extinction, and assume the larger ones are at less risk.
Population viability. A population with individuals distributed among all age classes is more
demographically "healthy" than one with obviously skewed stage distributions (e.g., all old or dying
individuals). Monitoring may be concentrated on those populations with the best potential for long-
term survival or on those that are obviously in trouble.
Population location. Selecting populations on the fringe of the distribution of the species usually
increases the range of genetic variability conserved. These populations may also occupy fringe
habitats that are marginal and stressful, and may express response to rangewide stresses, such as
climate changes, before more central populations.
Habitat quality. Depending on the situation, higher priority for monitoring may be applied to
populations found on degraded or disturbed habitat (because they are more at risk) or on stable or
pristine habitat (because protection is a better conservation investment than restoration).
Unique habitat. Populations located on unique habitat likely contain unique genetic combinations
and are important for conserving the range of genetic diversity of the species.
Previous information/monitoring/research. Populations with previous monitoring or natural history
studies may be a higher priority if data suggest a decline or problem, or a lower priority if data
suggest the population is stable or increasing.
Special management area. Specially designated areas such as Research Natural Areas (RNAs) and
purchased preserves represent a significant investment of resources. If rare plant populations are an
important factor for establishment or purchase, maintaining the population is a management
priority. Monitoring of these populations would be a higher priority than populations in non-
designated areas. Conversely, it may be assumed that the protection afforded by designation
reduces threats, as well as the need for monitoring.
Other. Most of the criteria applicable to prioritizing among species are also applicable to prioritizing
among populations (e.g., sensitivity to threats, extent of threats monitoring difficulty, availability of
management actions, recovery potential, public interest, and potential for crisis). Using these criteria
to establish priorities among populations, however, differs from their application to comparisons of
species. For example, characteristics such as high sensitivity to threat, known declines, and extensive
immediate threats would usually result in a high priority for a species.
Selecting Scale
Monitoring scales can vary from a single small local population of a few individuals (local scale), to
many large populations and the range of the species (landscape scale). The scale should be decided
explicitly, because scale has important implications for monitoring design (Chapter 7). 1. Landscape
scale The selection of scale will be guided by management considerations and priorities and limited
by resources available for monitoring. Landscape scale can be defined in a number of ways:
◆ all known populations of the species
◆ populations on Federal and State lands
◆ populations within an administrative boundary (e.g., BLM District or Resource Area, National
Forest)
◆ populations within a watershed
◆ populations within a vegetation type
◆ populations within a management unit (e.g., an allotment, a wilderness area)
◆ populations within a treatment area
◆ populations with a specific management treatment (e.g., grazed populations)
Establishing a system of monitoring populations of a species across its entire range provides the
most accurate measure of the overall trend and condition of a species. Because of the required
coordination efforts for species that cross administrative boundaries, however, such rangewide
approaches are unfortunately rarely attempted. If you share a species of limited distribution with
only one or two other agencies, consider trying to coordinate monitoring efforts. For species that
cross several administrative boundaries, the new efforts at interagency regional planning and
ecosystem management provide hope that coordination of rangewide monitoring of species may
become easier in the future. Once you've identified the landscape scale and the pool of populations
that you will consider monitoring, you need to decide if all populations at that scale will be
monitored or only a portion of them (perhaps because of limited monitoring resources). If
monitoring only a portion, you must decide if you want to draw a sample of populations from all
those that occur at that scale, or select specific populations. If you wish to draw conclusions about
all of the other populations at that scale from the portion monitored, you will need to draw a
random sample of monitored populations from the entire set of populations. For example, if you
monitor only populations that are easily accessible along roads, your sample would be biased (not
random) and only represent roadside populations. You would be unable to draw any conclusions
about populations in native habitat. You may, however, decide that you will select only roadside
populations because those are the ones about which you have conservation concerns. This is a
perfectly valid approach, as long as you recognize that you are limited to conclusions only about
those selected roadside populations
Local scale
You may be constrained by limited monitoring resources to selecting one or a few populations from
all of those known. You may select this population over others based on some criteria such as
previous information, ease of access, degree of threat or lack of it, size, and inclusion in a special
management area such as an RNA. Be aware that monitoring a population does not allow you to draw
conclusions about all of the populations. Even if you select a population at random, it is not
appropriate to assume it represents the range of conditions and trends occurring within other
populations. Common sense and biological experience suggest just the opposite. You may, however,
be able to use qualitative monitoring at other populations to support conclusions that trend or
condition is similar to the site you are monitoring quantitatively. Unless your selected population is
very small, you will face the same sample versus selection issue previously described for populations
at the landscape scale. If you wish to draw conclusions about the entire population you are
monitoring, you must sample the population randomly. Sometimes this is not possible. For example, a
population comprising individuals dispersed over a very large area may be difficult and time-
consuming to sample randomly, or some portions of the population may be physically inaccessible.
One option is to select a portion of the population as a key area or macroplot, monitor only within that
area, and agree among interested parties that the results will be applied to management of the entire
population . This approach is common in range studies. The drawback is that you must assume the
key area functions as an indicator for the entire population. Inferences cannot be made to the entire
population based on data. Changes measured on the macroplot may or may not represent those
occurring outside of the macroplot. This problem can be partially addressed by supplementing the
quantitative studies within a macroplot with qualitative studies dispersed throughout the population.
While you will still be unable to conclusively state that the changes observed within the macroplot
represent those outside the macroplot, the supporting evidence may be sufficiently strong for
management decisions. Situating a macroplot requires some decisions. Will the plot(s) be located in
the area most likely to be affected by adverse management? Will you attempt to locate the plot(s) in a
representative area of the population, and if so, how will you define what is representative? Will your
main criteria be ease of access? Chapter 7 discusses these issues in more detail.