• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Why it matters (substance and legal effect)

• Legal status and decision-making: under s.139 of the EPBC Act the Minister must not act inconsistently with an endorsed recovery plan when deciding whether to approve an action. The instrument therefore makes the recovery plan an operative policy that informs Commonwealth assessment and approval decisions for actions that may significantly impact the water mouse. (See Table 5, Action 1.1 text referencing s.139.)
• Assessment and referral expectations: the plan requires that developments within the modelled distribution be referred to the Commonwealth where they may cause a decline in the national population, and that those referrals be reviewed by Water Mouse Recovery Team expertise. This raises the evidentiary and procedural bar for proponents. (Table 5, Action 1.1.)
• Offsets and compensation: the plan sets restrictive conditions for when offsets will be accepted (conditions include demonstrable pre-development gains at the offset site, long‑term legal protection, and predictability under sea-level rise). It also states offsets based on area are generally inappropriate until more ecological data exist. That changes how compensation for impacts may be designed. (Table 5, Action 1.2.)
• Operational programme: the plan specifies a 10‑year recovery programme (actions, priorities, timeframes and estimated costs) including creation of a Water Mouse Recovery Team, fine-scale habitat mapping, targeted surveys, standardised population monitoring, adaptive management plans at each known location, threat abatement (foxes, pigs, cats, feral herbivores), and a research agenda. (Sections 1.4; 5.1–5.3; Tables 2–12.)

Stated purpose-claims and practical tests

• Purpose-claim: the plan aims to stabilise and recover the national water mouse population over ten years by reducing development impacts, improving knowledge, and coordinating partners. (Summary; Sections 1.4–1.5.)
  • Implementation cost and who pays: the plan allocates some Commonwealth funds (mapping, coordination), but relies heavily on partners, Indigenous ranger programs, local councils and proponents to deliver many on‑ground actions and monitoring. Several actions are described as "Core Government Business" while others are expected to be funded by proponents, grants or land managers (Table 12). That creates a mix of public and private cost bearers and a risk that full implementation will be limited by partner funding capacity. (Table 12.)
  • Incentives and burdens for private enterprise: developers face increased assessment requirements and potentially stricter conditions (Table 5, Actions 1.1–1.4). The offset tests are demanding (Action 1.2), so proponents cannot rely on simple habitat-area offsets. This raises the compliance cost and the uncertainty for development planning near modelled habitat.
  • Bureaucratic discretion and decision-centralisation: the plan centralises technical review and coordination in a Water Mouse Recovery Team and the Commonwealth environment department. The team is given a formal role in reviewing referrals and collating data (Tables 5, 7). That concentrates decision-making authority and expert gatekeeping at the Commonwealth/Recovery Team level, which may speed consistent application of ecological standards but also increases the importance of who sits on the team and how it operates.
  • Knowledge gaps and implementation risk: the plan repeatedly notes limited detectability, patchy distribution data, and large remote unsurveyed areas (Sections 3.3, 3.12). Many actions (mapping, surveys, genetic sampling, monitoring) are conditional on closing these gaps. Where data remain sparse, the plan directs a precautionary approach for approvals (Table 5, Action 1.1). Practically, this increases uncertainty for both regulators and proponents until surveys and mapping are completed.
  • Trade-offs and opportunity costs: enforcing a precautionary, development-limited approach in coastal zones may reduce some private development opportunities (noted in the plan as a cost to proponents) while aiming to secure public ecological and co‑benefits (e.g. wetland services, fisheries nurseries). Implementation will require balancing regional planning, infrastructure needs, and conservation priorities (Table 5, Actions 1.4 and 3.3).

Compliance burden, monitoring and enforcement

• Assessment and conditions: regulators must ensure referred coastal developments consider the plan's knowledge gaps and apply precaution where uncertainty exists (Table 5, Action 1.1). Prospective applicants should expect referral scrutiny and development conditions tied to adaptive management plans and ongoing monitoring.
• Compliance and penalties: the plan requires regulators to monitor compliance with approval conditions related to the water mouse and to penalise breaches proportional to remediation costs (Table 5, Action 1.3). That creates a direct enforcement expectation but depends on regulators' capacity and resourcing.

Who pays, who decides, and likely behaviours

• Who pays: a mixture — Commonwealth (coordination, mapping, some research), state/local governments (land management, compliance), proponents (referral/approval fees, potential mitigation/offset costs), and grant-funded partners (NRMs, Indigenous ranger groups) are expected funders. (Table 12.)
• Who decides: the Commonwealth Minister and Department, informed by the Water Mouse Recovery Team, will have a central coordinating and review role for referrals and for setting expectations under the EPBC Act (Table 5, Actions 1.1, 3.1).
• Likely behaviour changes: developers near modelled distribution will likely increase pre-referral survey investment, consider alternative designs, or avoid high‑risk locations; land managers and Indigenous groups may expand monitoring and apply for grants; researchers may prioritise the plan's listed research questions. (Strategies 2–7; Tables 4, 6, 11.)

Implementation risks and unintended consequences to watch for

• Dependence on partner funding and capacity (researchers, councils, Indigenous groups) may slow delivery of critical mapping and survey work (Tables 2, 4, 12).
• Where surveys remain incomplete, the precautionary referral rule could cause delays or increased costs for legitimate development, or conversely inconsistent application if regulators lack resources to enforce the plan's standards (Table 5, Action 1.1).
• The plan's restrictive view of offsets (Action 1.2) could reduce the pool of acceptable mitigation measures and force costlier avoidance or in‑situ management options.
• Centralising review in the Recovery Team concentrates influence in a body that must be properly constituted and resourced to avoid bottlenecks (Table 7, Action 3.1).

Key document pointers (where to read the rules)

• Legal instrument adopting the plan: Instrument clauses 2.1A–2.1C (name, commencement, authority).
• Effect on approvals: Table 5 (Strategy 1), especially Actions 1.1–1.4.
• Mapping and partner identification: Strategy 2 (Table 6).
• Recovery Team and communications: Strategy 3 (Table 7).
• Surveys, monitoring, adaptive management and research priorities: Strategies 4–7 (Tables 8–11).
• Funding and timeframes: Table 12 (priorities, costs and responsibilities).

© Commonwealth of Australia 2023

Ownership of intellectual property rights

Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licence

All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence except content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be emailed to copyright@dcceew.gov.au.

Cataloguing data

This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: DCCEEW (2023) National Recovery Plan for the water mouse (Xeromys myoides). Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra. CC BY 4.0.

This publication is available at dcceew.gov.au/publications.

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water

GPO Box 3090 Canberra ACT 2601

Telephone 1800 803 772

Web dcceew.gov.au  

Disclaimer

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying on any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Acknowledgements

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water recognises the ongoing connection of First Nations Peoples to culture and country across the water mouse distribution and beyond. We acknowledge First Nations Peoples as Traditional Owners, Custodians and Lore Keepers.

This recovery plan has been developed with the involvement and support of a broad range of partners, including Commonwealth and State environment departments, researchers, Aboriginal Corporations, Natural Resource Management bodies, local government, community group representatives, private land managers/custodians, and ecological consultants.

We would also like to thank all the partners who have assisted with recovery effort thus far, including the land managers and custodians who have actively contributed to recovery efforts on the land for which they are responsible.

The preparation of this plan was funded by the Commonwealth Government.

Image credits

Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) at Sandringham Bay Conservation Park on the central Queensland Coast. John Atkinson via Wikimedia Commons: CC BY-SA 4.0.

Contents

Summary

1.1 Status

1.2 Description, habitat and distribution

1.3 Threats

1.4 Recovery plan vision, objectives and strategies

1.5 Criteria for success

1.6 Recovery team

2 Recovery information

2.1 Historical context

2.2 Conservation status

2.3 International obligations

2.4 Consultation

2.5 Partners

2.6 Species significance

3 Species information

3.1 Taxonomy

3.2 Description

3.3 Distribution

3.4 Habitat

3.5 Shelter and breeding

3.6 Diet and foraging

3.7 Movement

3.8 Connectivity and dispersal

3.9 Population size

3.10 Population trend

3.11 Important locations

3.12 Targeted survey methods

3.13 Intermittent detectability

4 Threats

4.1 Coastal development (urban and commercial)

4.2 Rapid sea level rise with climate change

4.3 Mangrove dieback

4.4 Prolonged and extreme inundation

4.5 Introduced predators

4.6 Cropping and aquaculture

4.7 Coastal pollution

4.8 Large herbivores

4.9 Fire

4.10 Weeds

4.11 Distribution of threats

4.12 Locations (populations) under pressure

4.13 Locations that are managed

4.14 Occurrence in protected areas

5 Recovery

5.1 Objectives

5.2 Actions

5.3 Priorities, timeframes and funding

5.4 Social and economic considerations

5.5 Ecological co-benefits

5.6 Plan implementation and evaluation

References

Expert Insight

Appendix A: Recorded water mouse locations

Appendix B: Priority locations for targeted water mouse detection surveys

Appendix C: Report framework for targeted water mouse surveys and incidental detections

Tables

Table 1: Affected interests and their relationship with the water mouse Recovery Plan

Table 2: Risk matrix

Table 3: Indicative summary of threat impacts across the water mouse distribution.

Table 4: Occurrence of water mouse in protected and heritage areas.

Table 5: Actions to ensure activities and developments in coastal areas within the modelled distribution of the water mouse are adequately assessed and regulated (Strategy 1).

Table 6: Actions to map water mouse habitat and locations at a fine scale (Strategy 2).

Table 7: Actions to develop clear and adaptive communications and implement tailored engagement processes (Strategy 3).

Table 8: Actions to support targeted water mouse detection surveys in areas of potential habitat (Strategy 4).

Table 9: Actions to support land managers and Custodians to include the water mouse in effective adaptive land management plans that identify and address local threats, and to implement these plans (Strategy 5).

Table 10: Actions to ensure effective water mouse population monitoring occurs (Strategy 6).

Table 11: Research questions to address knowledge gaps about water mouse ecology and detectability, and the impact of threats to the national population (Strategy 7).

Table 12: Priorities, actions, timeframes, estimated costs and primary funding sources for water mouse recovery.

Figures

Figure 1: A compilation of water mouse images displaying this species’ size and key features including grey fur with white flecking in some individuals, contrasting white belly, feet, and lower snout and cheeks, and short tail.

Figure 2: Examples of water mouse habitat along the southern Queensland coast: saltmarsh, coastal reeds, mangroves, mixed mangrove and saltmarsh, brackish sedgeland.

Figure 3: An example of water mouse habitat in the Mackay region.

Figure 4: Examples of mangroves at recorded water mouse locations in Cairns.

Figure 5: Water mouse habitat at Wando village on the Bensbach/Torassi River floodplain in southern New Guinea.

Figure 6: Examples of extensive mixed mangroves/saltmarsh, brackish and freshwater floodplain, and mangroves that may support undetected water mouse populations.

Figure 7: Examples of water mouse mud shelters at the hollow base of a tree.

Figure 8: Examples of water mouse mud shelters at the base of live and dead trees and in tree roots.

Figure 9: Example of a supralittoral bank (top left) and water mouse mud shelters in banks (top right, bottom).

Figure 10: Examples of water mouse mud shelters enhancing small, vegetated islands.

Figure 11: Examples of free-standing mud mound shelters in saltmarsh and mangrove communities along the southern Queensland coast.

Figure 12: An artificial mound colonised by water mouse.

Figure 13: Entry holes into water mouse mud shelters associated with hollow mangrove trees.

Figure 14: Water mouse mud shelter maintenance and repair: fresh mud tracks on top of a mound (top left), repaired damage to the side of a mound (top right), and mud spoil at the entry from internal maintenance (bottom).

Figure 15: Abundant crabs in mangroves that are occupied by the water mouse.

Figure 16: A water mouse moving through mangrove habitat.

Figure 17: Box trap setups for targeted water mouse detection (left) and research (right).

Figure 18: Water mouse detections on camera traps in southeast Queensalnd (top) and West Arnhem Land (bottom).

Figure 19: Typical feeding sign of a water mouse: crab claws and carapaces in neat piles (top and centre) or scattered near the entry of a mud shelter (bottom).

Figure 20: A water mouse on top of its mud shelter during a flood caused by an east coast low and high tide.

Figure 21: Camera trap detections of European red foxes disturbing and dismantling water mouse mounds along the southern Queensland coast.

Figure 22: Pig damage to water mouse habitat (left) and a mud mound shelter (right).

Figure 23: Significant cattle pugging and mud disturbance in water mouse habitat.

Figure 24: Burnt water mouse mud mound and surrounding habitat.

Maps

Map 1: Modelled water mouse distribution in Australia and southern New Guinea.

Summary

The purpose of this plan is to set out the management and research actions that are necessary to stabilise and better understand the national water mouse (Xeromys myoides) population over the next ten years.

1.1                  Status

International IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2020): Vulnerable.

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Vulnerable.

Queensland Nature Conservation (Animals) Regulation 2020 under the Nature Conservation Act 1992: Vulnerable.

Northern Territory Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000: Data Deficient.

New South Wales and Western Australia: Not listed (may occur).

1.2                  Description, habitat and distribution

The water mouse is a small rodent with grey fur and a contrasting white belly, cheeks and upper lip. It is the only species in its genus and it occupies a unique ecological niche among rodents: primarily sheltering and breeding in permanent mud nests including in mangrove hollows above the high water line and feeding primarily on crabs and other marine invertebrates in the damp intertidal zone. Despite its name, the water mouse is a terrestrial species. It lives in intertidal mangrove and saltmarsh habitats, as well as coastal and subcoastal freshwater and brackish wetlands, swamps and floodplains.

Knowledge about the distribution and occurrence of the elusive water mouse is limited. It is a widespread species that is patchily recorded from three regions along the northern and eastern coastlines of Australia, and also from one location in southern New Guinea. It is most often encountered in coastal and island areas from the Coomera River to the Whitsunday coast in eastern Queensland. There are sporadic records along coastal areas of the Northern Territory, including the Tiwi Islands, and the far north Queensland coast from Cairns to the Hinchinbrook channel.

The water mouse is predicted to occur in additional unsurveyed areas of potential coastal and subcoastal habitat in Queensland, the Northern Territory, and New Guinea. It may also occur in unsurveyed potential habitat in Western Australia and New South Wales, beyond its current recorded range.

1.3                  Threats

The primary threat to the survival of the water mouse is loss and fragmentation of habitat and adjacent areas due to coastal development, particularly along the central and southern Queensland coast. This will be exacerbated by sea-level rise causing coastal squeeze as climate change progresses. Coastal developments also increase the risk of water mouse habitat degradation from altered hydrology, exposure of acid sulfate soils, recreational activities (e.g. water vessel wash, quad bikes, four-wheel drives), excessive groundwater extraction, chemical leaching, and insecticide spray for mosquito control.

Other significant threats to the water mouse include damage to critical shelters and predation by European red fox and feral pig, mangrove dieback and saltwater intrusion, loss of cover and damage to critical shelters by large herbivores and fire, cropping and aquaculture, cat predation, and oil spill. As climate change progresses, the water mouse may also be threatened by prolonged inundation from severe cyclone and storm tidal surges and extreme seasonal flooding across its range. The risk level for these threats varies significantly across the water mouse distribution.

1.4                  Recovery plan vision, objectives and strategies

The long-term vision for the water mouse is that its distribution, population trends and threats are understood, and threats are effectively addressed to ensure the ongoing decline in the national population is stabilised and shows recovery despite anticipated future impacts of climate change. This water mouse recovery plan sets out objectives and actions that will ensure significan

This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.