River Cane Restoration (Southeast Blueprint Indicator)

Reason for Selection This indicator prioritizes places for river cane restoration within and near the lands of federally recognized Tribes and within protected areas. River cane (Arundinaria gigantea) is a bamboo native to the Southeast United States. It historically formed large stands called canebrakes that could stretch for miles within the floodplain and riparian areas. Often mistaken for invasive Asian bamboo, river cane is not a rare species, but river cane habitats and ecosystems are fragmented. Canebrakes have declined to less than 2% of their historical extent (Noss 1995), and large, intact canebrakes that exceed more than a few acres are exceedingly rare. In addition to its significant ecological value, river cane is also considered a cultural keystone species for many Tribes and Indigenous communities. Cultural keystone species are species whose existence have significantly contributed to the cultural identity of a people (Garibaldi et al. 2004). Historically, Indigenous people stewarded, managed, and harvested river cane to use for many aspects of daily life. Canebrakes have been described as a “supermarket” in terms of the breadth of resources offered (Kniffen et al. 1987). River cane served as the primary material for baskets, tools, fuel and candles, building materials, weaponry, religious practices, and more (Anderson and Oakes 2011). It also served as a food source, and seeds were ground into flour (Kniffen et al. 1987). The significant decline of river cane—particularly canebrakes in sufficiently good condition for harvest—has impacted the health and habitat of many species, and has endangered aspects of Indigenous cultures. For example, in 2012 the Cherokee Nation listed river cane on their Culturally Protected Species list (Chavez 2012). Canebrakes can serve as important habitat for many native species, including wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), Bachman’s warbler (Vermivora bachmanii), Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and numerous pollinators. In addition, river cane rhizomes help secure soils to control erosion, especially to stabilize streambanks. Research also suggests that incorporating river cane into riparian buffer restoration filters surface runoff, effectively reducing nutrient loads into streams, even at riparian buffer widths of just 10 m (Schoonover et. al. 2005, Schoonover and Williard 2007). Finally, this indicator reflects the potential for relationships between Indigenous Nations and land holders, particularly of public lands, to build co-management practices that prioritize healthy river cane ecosystems. Indigenous leadership and involvement in river cane restoration efforts can enhance effectiveness and impact—benefiting Tribal nations, local communities, and protected area land managers (Wall et. al. 2025, Lyver et. al. 2015). This indicator also promotes consistency with the Tribal Trust responsibilities held by the federal government to Tribal nations to protect Indigenous resources and lands, and to advance the preservation goals of many Indigenous governments in the Southeast whose cultural survival and land health rely heavily on river cane ecosystems. Input Data * Estimated Floodplain Map of the Conterminous U.S. from [the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) EnviroAtlas]; [see this factsheet] for more information; [download the data] The EPA Estimated Floodplain Map of the Conterminous U.S. displays “...areas estimated to be inundated by a 100-year flood (also known as the 1% annual chance flood). These data are based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood inundation maps with the goal of creating a seamless floodplain map at 30-m resolution for the conterminous United States. This map identifies a given pixel’s membership in the 100-year floodplain and completes areas that FEMA has not yet mapped” (EPA 2018). * Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) [Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database]: 30 m CONUS soils data, accessed March 2025 * [Protected Areas Database of the United States] (PAD-US): [PAD-US 3.0] national geodatabase - Combined Proclamation Marine Fee Designation Easement; [PAD-US 4.0] national geodatabase - Combined Proclamation Marine Fee Designation Easement * [Southeast Floodplain Inundation Frequency] dataset developed by Yvonne Allen with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (last updated 4-2-2025) * U.S. Census Bureau [2021 TIGER/Line National U.S. American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) Areas] shapefile * 2021 NOAA [Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) regional 30 m CONUS landcover ](accessed April 2025) * [Stable coastal wetlands] (Southeast Blueprint indicator) * [Southeast Blueprint 2025 extent] (continental only) Mapping Steps * Create an enhanced floodplain layer to serve as a foundation for potential river cane restoration/management areas. Combine the EPA 100-year floodplain with frequently flooded soil areas from gSSURGO, then use inundation frequency data to remove areas that are too frequently flooded. * Using Extract by Mask, clip the gSSURGO soils data to the Southeast Blueprint continental extent. * Join the “muaggatt” table to the soils data using the ArcGIS Add Join function, then make a copy of the raster to preserve the join. * Reclassify the joined raster using the “flood frequency dominate condition” field. Assign a value of 1 to the “Very frequent”, “Frequent”, or “Occasional” classes, and assign a value of 0 to the “Very rare”, “Rare”, or “None” classes. * Reclassify the joined raster again using the “flood frequency maximum” field. Assign a value of 1 to the “Very frequent”, “Frequent”, or “Occasional” classes and assign a value of 0 to the “Very rare”, “Rare”, or “None” classes. * Combine the two soil flood frequency rasters produced above with the EPA 100-year floodplain raster using the ArcGIS Cell Statistics “MAXIMUM” function. This enhances the EPA floodplain layer by adding additional potentially flooded areas. * Reproject the inundation frequency data and convert it to 30 m using the ArcGIS Project Raster function with bilinear resampling type. * Extract pixels with an inundation frequency score >5 from the resampled inundation layer using the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst Conditional function. This is a draft threshold to remove areas from the enhanced floodplain layer that may be too wet for river cane. In the output raster, assign a value of 0 to pixels with an inundation frequency score >5 and assign all other pixels a value of 1. * Remove frequently inundated pixels from the enhanced floodplain layer using the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst Times function. * Remove coastal wetlands from the improved floodplain layer to define potential river cane restoration/management areas. * Make a copy of the NOAA C-CAP raster. Using the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst Conditional function, assign a value of 0 to the C-CAP estuarine wetland classes (16, 17, 18), barren land class (20), and unconsolidated shore class (19). All other pixels retain the value from the improved floodplain layer created above (either 1 or 0). * Using the ArcGIS Times function, use the reclassified C-CAP data to remove the specified landcover classes from the improved floodplain layer. * Reclassify the stable coastal wetland indicator to extract non-wetland areas. Assign a value of 1 to pixels scored as NoData or 0, and a value of 0 to pixels scored as 1 or 2. * Using the ArcGIS Times function, use the reclassified stable coastal wetlands indicator to further refine the improved floodplain layer by removing coastal wetlands. * The resulting layer represents potential river cane restoration/management areas. * Because of river cane’s unique value to Tribal communities, use Tribal lands to elevate potential restoration/management areas that are on or near Tribal lands. * Make a copy of the census AIANNH layer. Extract the lands of federally recognized Tribes by using the ArcGIS Select function to pull out polygons with a AIANNHR value of “F”. * Convert the resulting federally recognized Tribal lands layer to a raster. Assign them a value of 1,000 in the output raster. * Buffer the federally recognized Tribal lands by 60 miles. * Convert the buffered federally recognized Tribal lands to raster. Assign them a value of 100 in the output raster. * Protected areas offer an opportunity to restore and manage river cane. Use protected areas to elevate potential restoration/management areas on protected lands. * Prepare the protected areas data, starting with PAD-US 4.0. To exclude areas that do not meet the intent of this indicator, remove areas with location designations (Loc_Ds) of ‘School Trust Land’, ‘School Lands’, ‘School Land’, ‘State Land Board’, or ‘3201’. * Remove areas with the designation type (Des_Tp) of ‘Military’ or “Proclamation’. Military lands are not primarily managed for conservation. The proclamation category represents the approved boundary of public lands, within which land protection is authorized to occur, but not all lands within the proclamation boundary are necessarily currently in a conserved status. * Based on feedback from expert reviewers, add back in Army Corps of Engineers lands that were removed with the rest of the military lands. * Remove areas with the owner name of ‘BOEM’. These Outer Continental Shelf lease blocks serve as the “legal definition for BOEM offshore boundary coordinates...for leasing and administrative purposes” (BOEM). * Remove areas with a category of ‘Proclamation’ (see explanation above). * PAD-US 4.0 is missing state wildlife management area boundaries in Oklahoma. Extract those from PAD-US 3.0 by using a combination of a state name of ‘Oklahoma’ and local designation of ‘State Wildlife Management Area’. * Merge the selected polygons from PAD-US 4.0 and PAD-US 3.0, then convert to raster and reclassify to assign a value of 10 to protected areas. * Rank potential river cane restoration/management areas based on their proximity to Tribal lands and protected status. * Combine the following rasters using the ArcGIS Cell Statistics “MAXIMUM” function: potential river cane restoration/management areas (1), Tribal lands (1,000), a 60 mi buffer around Tribal lands (100), and protected lands (10). Lands within the extent of the Southeast Blueprint but outside the identified potential river cane restoration/management areas retain a value of 0. * Reclassify the above raster to assign ranks based on proximity to Tribal lands and protected status, as seen in the final legend values below. * As a final step, clip to the extent of Southeast Blueprint 2025. Note: For more details on the mapping steps, code used to create this layer is available [in the Southeast Blueprint 2025 Data Download] under > 6_Code. Final indicator values Indicator values are assigned as follows: 5 = Potential river cane restoration/management area on Tribal land 4 = Potential river cane restoration/management area on protected land near Tribal lands 3 = Potential river cane restoration/management area near Tribal lands 2 = Potential river cane restoration/management area on protected land 1 = Potential river cane restoration/management area 0 = Not identified as a river cane restoration/management area Known Issues * We removed areas that were identified as estuarine wetland classes or coastal wetlands. By removing these areas, we may have also removed some places where river cane restoration could occur. Other types of cane, like switch cane (Arundinaria tecta) can grow in coastal areas. * We removed areas that were highly inundated or inundated all of the time because they were likely too wet for river cane to occur. However, we are still likely are overpredicting river cane in wetlands or highly saturated areas. Research in western North Carolina suggests that river cane is not a wetlands plant and prefers well drained soils (Tanner et. al. 2011). * There are historical records of river cane being used by Tribes in New Mexico. We extended this model to include all of Texas and Oklahoma to capture restoration opportunities in places where river cane may have historically occurred but has since been eradicated (Roger Cain, personal communication). * We are likely overpredicting restoration opportunities for river cane in southern Florida, which is outside river cane’s documented historic extent. However, after talking with experts during the external review process, we chose to not limit this indicator based on historical extent. We also did not consult with any federally recognized Tribes in peninsular Florida about this indicator, we and may refine our approach in southern Florida in the future as we receive more input. Recommendations for Co-Management This indicator reflects the potential for relationships between Indigenous Nations and land holders, particularly of public lands, to build co-management practices that prioritize healthy river cane ecosystems. Working with Tribes to help steward river cane can support a larger network of conservation efforts for this culturally and ecologically significant species. Below are general steps that can help interested land managers establish a co-stewardship strategy to manage river cane with federally recognized Tribes. * State fish and wildlife agencies: * Consult your agency’s guidance on Tribal engagement. * Refer to your State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP): Since 2005, every state and territorial fish and wildlife agency has produced a SWAP, which is updated every 10 years. These plans identify Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), or species most in need of conservation action. The 2015 West Virginia SWAP lists river cane as a plant SGCN and it is referenced it in at least eight other SWAPs (NC, SC, GA, MS, LA, OK, AR, KY)— highlighted for its value for animal SGCN, its historic importance, and the need for further research on its benefits to wildlife. Some SWAPs also identify river cane restoration as a key conservation strategy to support other SGCN. * Private organization and land holders: Refer to the literature cited below and to the [Rivercane Restoration Alliance] for guidance. * Identify nearby federally recognized Tribes at [Search Federally Recognized Tribes | Indian Affairs (bia.gov)]. * Contact the relevant Tribal government offices in your area, such as those within the departments of natural resources or cultural and historic preservation. Consider providing detailed information, including potential access information. * Establish a collaborative plan for Tribal member access to river cane for harvesting or co-management. * Note that engagement may take time and involve sensitivities around knowledge practices. Disclaimer: Comparing with Older Indicator Versions There are numerous problems with using Southeast Blueprint indicators for change analysis. Please consult Blueprint staff if you would like to do this (email [hilary_morris@fws.gov]). Literature Cited Anderson, M.K. and Oakes, T. 2011. Plant Guide for Giant Cane Arundinaria gigantea. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Plant Data Team. Greensboro, NC 27401 Chavez, Will. August 14, 2012. River cane added to Culturally Protected Species List. Cherokee Phoenix. [[https://www.cherokeephoenix.org/culture/river-cane-added-to-culturally-protected-species-list/article_f0953e8b-5c29-5380-b2b8-b5ad39260c18.html]]. EPA EnviroAtlas. 2018. Estimated Floodplain Map of the Conterminous U.S. [[https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/Supplemental/EstimatedFloodplains.pdf]]. Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. [[https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/]]. Kniffen, F.B., H.F. Gregory, and G.A. Stokes. 1987. Tribes of Louisiana from 1542 to the Present. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Lyver, POB., Akins, A., Phipps, H., Kahui V., Towns, DR., Moller, H. 2016. Key biocultural values to guide restoration action and planning in New Zealand. Restoration Ecology. Volume 24, Issue 3, 314–323. Noss, R., Scott, M., and LaRoe, E.T. 199). Endangered eco-systems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. 128. Schoonover, J.E., Williard, K.W.J., Zaczek, J.J., Mangun J.C., and Carver, A.D. 2005. Nutrient Attenuation in Agricultural Surface Runoff by Riparian Buffer Zones in Southern Illinois, USA. Agroforestry Systems 64, 169–180. [[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-004-0294-7]]. Schoonover, J.E. and Williard, K.W.J. 2007. Ground Water Nitrate Reduction in Giant Cane and Forest Riparian Buffer Zones. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 39. 347-354. [[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2003.tb04389.x]]. Tanner, B.R., Kinner, D.A., Griffith, A.D., Young R. S., and Sorrell, L.M. 2011.Presence of Arundinaria gigantea (river cane) on numerous non-wetland sites suggests improper ecological classification of the species. Wetlands Ecology and Management 19, 521–532 (2011). [[https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-011-9233-3]]. Wall, J., Moola, F., Lukawiecki, J. 2025. Indigenous-led conservation improves outcomes in protected areas. Nature Reviews Biodiversity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00054-9.