Patterns of change: Land use/ land cover dynamics in priority vs. non-priority watersheds in Eastern Kentucky

• Surface mining and reclamation have significantly transformed the landscape in the Appalachia region. • Land Use and Land Cover patterns vary significantly between Priority Watersheds (PWs) and Non-Priority Watersheds (NPWs). • PWs experienced more ecologically beneficial land cover transitions compared to NPWs. • NPWs had more fragmented, unstable, and urbanizing land transitions. • Hot Spot Analysis shows stronger restoration in PWs than NPWs. Land use and land cover change (LULCC) in mining-affected landscapes presents significant challenges for ecological restoration and sustainable watershed management. It is important to examine whether prioritizing watersheds is an effective strategy for promoting stable and ecologically beneficial land cover transitions. Priority Watersheds (PWs), classified under the EPA guidelines, receive greater consideration for funding and resources. The effectiveness of various restoration efforts remains unexplored at the watershed level, and this study examines whether the PWs are performing better than the Non-Priority Watersheds (NPWs). It is hypothesized that there is no significant difference in LULCC between the PWs and NPWs. It assessed the differences in spatiotemporal dynamics of LULCC between PWs and NPWs in the Big Sandy River Basin, Kentucky, using National Land Cover Datasets (NLCD) from 2001 to 2021. Remote sensing and GIS were used to map transitions across eight major land cover classes, and hot spot analysis was employed to compare patterns of LULCC in PWs and NPWs. Results showed that, between 2001 and 2021, PWs experienced more ecologically favorable transitions, including significant reductions in barren land (-67.0 %), a slight increase in forest (0.90 %), and a significant increase in shrubland cover (234.1 %), primarily due to targeted restoration efforts and regulatory frameworks. In contrast, NPWs exhibited more fragmented and unstable land cover changes, including a forest decline (-0.1 %), higher rates of development (6.8 %) and water loss (-10.2 %), reflecting weaker oversight and limited reclamation. These findings underscore the effectiveness of watershed prioritization and the need for expanded restoration efforts in NPWs.