According to the NCA5, Wyoming is part of the Northern Great Plains region. 

Here are applicable Key Messages for the Northern Great Plains related to Agriculture and Land Use. 

Key: blue highlight = historical trends, yellow highlight = projected trends, and green highlight = both historical and projected trends. 

“Plant hardiness zones are projected to shift northward throughout this century” (13)

Figure 11.3: "Plant hardiness zones help local farmers and gardeners identify optimal crops to plant and when to plant them. Hardiness zones are projected to migrate northward as the climate warms. The maps show plant hardiness zones for (a) present-day (1991-2020) climate normals, and (b) midcentury (2036-2065) and (c) late century (2071-2100) under a high emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5). Figure credit: USDA, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC" (13).

• Higher carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to benefit the productivity of many crops, “increasing above-ground net primary productivity but decreasing nutritional quality” (18). However, a decrease in available water resources due to drought would cause an opposite effect by “reducing biomass production, concentrating nutrients, and increasing forage quality” (18). 
• The “net effect of climate change on specific crop yields is uncertain and will depend on the interactions of temperature, moisture, carbon dioxide, and ozone, as well as adaptation through shifts in cultivars, crop mix, and management practices” (18). 
• Loss of biodiversity due to the conversion of grasslands to monoculture cropland and the spread of invasive species (17, 13). Specifically, invasive cool-season grasses are reducing biodiversity; for more information, see the NC CASC’s 2023 RCAP, “Climate Change Impacts on Introduced Cool Season (C3) Grasses in the Prairie Pothole Region, USA” (17). 
• Ecosystem structure is changing as a result of climate change, which can be gradual or abrupt and “depend[s] in part on ecosystem characteristics and key species” (9).  Ecosystems with higher biodiversity are more resilient to changes; therefore, increased protection and “reduced fragmentation and degradation of ecosystems” is critical for vulnerable ecosystems (9). Examples include dry forests and woodlands, which, after experiencing drought and wildfire, are transforming into grasslands and shrublands; sagebrush shrublands experiencing wildfire, invasive species, land use change, and climate change are transforming into non-native grasslands; and Great Plains grasslands, as they experience warming and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, are becoming woodlands (9). 

“Climate change interacts with other stressors to cause synergistic effects, and resulting ecosystem changes can be abrupt and difficult to reverse” (9)

Figure 8.6: "In the western US, drought and longer, hotter growing seasons combined with invasive grasses and overgrazing have transformed sagebrush shrublands past a tipping point into annual grasslands that experience more frequent wildfires and no longer support native biodiversity and livestock grazing. Removing invasive grasses and seeding with native plants often does not restore the original shrubland ecosystem. Adapted from Foley et al. 2015" (9).

• Outbreaks of spruce and mountain pine beetles have become more frequent; while these beetles are a natural part of ecosystems in the Northern Great Plains, they are kept in check by cold winters that reduce their population for the next year (5). However, as the climate changes and winters become more warm, it is no longer cold enough to keep beetle populations from increasing to unusual levels (5). In addition, increases in drought have stressed forest ecosystems, making trees more susceptible to colonization from beetles (5). Together, these factors are responsible for the large-scale beetle outbreaks observed in the Northern Great Plains, and have impacted forestry practices and industries (5). 

“Climate change and climate-related disturbances are affecting forests in the United States” (5)

Figure 7.5: "The figure shows recently documented effects, specific to individual forest types, that have been attributed to climate change and climate-related disturbances. Effects include increased tree mortality across all types with high confidence, changes in forest structure with variable confidence, less carbon storage across three of the four forest types, and variable shifts in plant species composition. Confidence levels reflect the uncertainty in attributions based on available literature. Arrows indicate the direction of change where suitable data exist. In the case of temperate forests, structure is changing but not in a unidirectional way. Boreal forest reflects changes only in Alaska. Assessments in the figure are based on recent relevant literature, and citations can be found in the metadata. Adapted with permission from Figure SPM.2 in IPCC 2022" (5).

• Decrease in pollinator populations as land use change threatens critical habitat (17). 
• The relationship between Indigenous communities and traditional foods, medicines, and plants is threatened by changes in growing and harvesting seasons as well as changes in species composition (18). For example, above average temperatures in 2017 caused a delay in the harvest and availability of medicines and berries - specifically, wild turnips and chokecherries - for Lakota communities (18). Communities that rely on “hunting, fishing, foraging, and subsistence farming” for food are also at risk of food insecurity due to changes in climate (14). 
• Impacts on livestock have been minimal so far compared to other regions in the United States, but as changes in temperature and precipitation occur, ranchers will face challenges in “managing livestock health due to heat stress, parasites, pathogens, and managing shifts in forage species” (18). 
• The interaction between environmental and social stressors has caused rising land prices, the expansion of cropland into less productive areas, and land ownership concentration trends (18). In addition, communities of color are experiencing additional barriers due to “discriminatory planning practices, housing segregation, and racism” (11). 
• Tourism and recreation industries are vulnerable to impacts from climate change; fishing and water-based activities will be severely impacted as changes in temperature and precipitation affect water levels, fish species, and competition between water recreation uses (18). In addition, wildfire smoke shortened visits to the Northern Great Plains, resulting in a loss of income for local communities (18). The length of the winter recreation season will decrease, negatively impacting economies, particularly in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota; however, “shoulder season” recreation opportunities may be expanded, providing additional opportunities for tourists (18, 6). 
• Trade-offs will be necessary as temperatures increase and soil moisture decreases; communities in the Northern Great Plains will need to move towards “water-conservative and nutrient-retentive land cover” (19). For example, converting row crops to grassland would “enhance ecosystem services such as wildlife, flood retention, nutrient stabilization, and carbon sequestration” and change local industries from agriculture to “forage, animal products, native plant seed, biofuel from grass, increased hunting on private land, and carbon credits” (19). However, this comes with its own set of trade-offs and challenges that communities must consider and navigate (19). 

How are communities addressing these changes?

• Communities in the Northern Great Plains, including rural communities with “economic dependence on single-sector or resource-based economies,” are “developing innovative climate adaptation solutions to support livelihoods” to increase resilience (11, 20). Many of these solutions may support multiple goals, such as solutions to protect economic interests that “also support mitigation by sequestering carbon,” or improving soil quality, which will increase resilience to flood and drought events, enhance “carbon and nitrogen cycling and soil structure, increase soil microbial communities, and lower pest communities while reducing inputs and leading to greater yields and profitability” (20). Furthermore, “reintegrating row crop and livestock systems could diversify income, increase operation resilience, and restore ecosystem services” (20). 
• Implementation of demand-management programs, where water users are compensated for voluntarily reducing consumption, are being considered by organizations such as the Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC) in the “Upper Division states of the basin, including Wyoming” (20). These programs would encourage communities to adapt strategic water use strategies without sacrificing profit from agriculture or other industries (20). 
• Smaller-scale watershed and irrigation groups are considering collaborative strategies to share water management and manage water resources for a variety of needs, which can assist farmers and ranchers who rely heavily on these resources (16). These groups include the Brush Creek Irrigation District and the Popo Agie Watershed Healthy Rivers Initiative in Wyoming (20). 
• The development of drought plans by rights holders and ranchers can help communities plan for necessary drought responses, such as “adjusting the number of cattle, the season of grazing, the length of grazing time in pastures based on precipitation and vegetation growth, or holistic planned grazing strategies that manage for ecosystem health by adapting to changing conditions” (20). As many as 60% of ranchers in the NGP have a drought plan of some kind, but increased inclusion of climate data could help to increase the efficacy of these plans; these efforts can be supported by “translating climate outlooks into usable information for ranchers” (20). 
• Drought plans incorporating climate change data can be developed for agriculture, as well; for example, the 2022 Blackfeet Agricultural Resource Management Plan (ARMP) listed climate change “as a primary challenge to both dryland and irrigated agriculture… due to earlier snowmelt, increased evapotranspiration, and less water available for irrigation” (20). 
• Public land managers, including agencies such as the National Parks Service, have “adapted scenario-based planning to help natural and cultural resource managers… work with uncertainty and address the ways change might plausibly occur” (20). For more information on scenario-based planning, see Figure 25.12 (below) or check out a publication on scenario-based decisionmaking led by several NC CASC scientists. Additionally, learn more about NC CASC’s current projects, including those about scenario-based planning, here! 

“Scenario-based planning accounts for uncertainty by considering a range of ways in which change might occur” (16)

Figure 25.12: "Forecast-based planning uses predictions of a single future (b), whereas scenario-based planning works with a set of plausible futures that capture a broad range of potential future conditions, providing a framework to support decisions under conditions that are uncertain and uncontrollable. Scenario-based planning at Wind Cave National Park identified four potential outcomes (a, c) for grassland and pine forest vegetation, surface water availability, and American bison (Bison bison) and prairie dog colonies under different climate futures - very dry and droughty (brown), frequent droughts (red), generally drier (green), and a bit wetter (blue) - all of which have different management implications for the natural and cultural resources in the park. Each dot in the graph represents a climate projection, and the set of four circled projections collectively encompasses most of the range of ways in which drought and springtime moisture levels could change by midcentury. SPEI - the Standardized Precipitation-Evaporation Index - is a multi-scalar drought index, based on precipitation and potential evapotranspiration, that is used to identify wet and dry periods in a given location. A zero value indicates average moisture balance, positive values signify above-average wetness, and negative values represent drier-than-average conditions. SPEI-3 is a three-monthly SPEI calculation, and this fugure shows values for April - June. Adapted from Schuurman et al. 2022 and Runyon et al. 2021" (16).

• Adaptation strategies, such as Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) and the Corals and Climate Adaptation Planning cycle, are additional tools for rights holders and managers (9). The NC CASC is contributing to an ongoing Cross-Park RAD project with resource managers at the Glacier National Park and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes - learn more here! 

“Decision frameworks can help plan for the potential transformation of ecosystems” (9)

Figure 8.9: "Two examples of adaptive decision frameworks are the Corals and Climate Adaptation Planning cycle (a) and the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework (b). In (a), users are guided through assessment and design considerations to adjust climate-smart management interventions. In (b), the current ecosystem (gray) is affected by either moderate or strong transformational forcing that drives decisions (black dots) to resist (red time periods), accept (yellow time periods), and direct (green time periods) the trajectory of change. (a) Adapted from West et al. 2017, 2018; (b) adapted from Lynch et al. 2022" (9).

• Nature-based solutions (NBSs), or “ecosystem-based mitigation and adaptation opportunities,” are another pathway for adapting management practices to climate change; when NBSs are “managed in collaboration with affected communities and… local knowledge,” these can be effective solutions for addressing multiple management goals in an inclusive, cost-effective method (11). 
• Natural resource management responses, including “increasing conservation efforts, reducing habitat fragmentation, protecting wildlife corridors, assisting species migration, and expanding protection activities,” can address climate changes by increasing resilience (10). 
• Forestry and silvicultural practices, such as “thinning to reduce tree densities, can be used to increase the resistance and resilience of some forests to bark beetles” (5). In addition, reforestation practices, “including where species are planted and which species and genotypes are planted, will facilitate adaptation to future climatic conditions” (7).