Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00287:reg:3:p164
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00287
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 3 (pt 164/276)
Character Range: 615194–620303

months. Nests in burrows or on the surface under natural and artificial cover.
Feeds on small squid and crustaceans taken from the open ocean (Halpin et al. 2022). Not known to frequent at-sea areas of high plastic concentrations in breeding or non-breeding periods (Clarke et al. 2023).

Habitat
Marine pelagic species that migrates to the North Pacific when not breeding.

Threats
The main threats to the white-necked petrel are reduction in the quality of foraging areas through climate-related shifts in oceanic resources, predation of chicks by purple swamphens, human disturbance of nests, and degradation and loss of breeding habitat.

Impact on other species
None known.

Risk assessment
The risk assessment is shown in Table 56 and Table 57.
Table 56 Risk assessment for Pterodroma cervicalis (current range, Phillip Island)
Risk                                                                                                               Likelihood of exposure    Consequence  Threat rating
1. Loss and fragmentation of native vegetation through past land clearing                                          Almost certain (91–100%)  Extreme      Extreme
2. Loss and fragmentation of native vegetation through current or future land clearing                             Unlikely (11–25%)         Negligible   Negligible
3. Degradation of native vegetation through past grazing or loss of nutrients                                      Likely (51–90%)           Major        High
4. Degradation of native vegetation through current or future grazing                                              Unlikely (11–25%)         Negligible   Negligible
5. Lack of available nest sites                                                                                    Unlikely (11–25%)         Negligible   Negligible
6. Predation by rodents                                                                                            Possible (26–50%)         Extreme      High
7. Predation by cats                                                                                               Possible (26–50%)         Extreme      High
8. Predation or damage by chickens                                                                                 Unlikely (11–25%)         Negligible   Negligible
9. Predation by swamphens                                                                                          Likely (51–90%)           Moderate     Medium
10. Predation by Argentine ant                                                                                     Likely (51–90%)           Major        High
11. Competition from/change of habitat because of weed invasion                                                    Unlikely (11–25%)         Minor        Low
12. Infection by pathogens already present                                                                         Unlikely (11–25%)         Negligible   Negligible
13. Impacts of potential new invasive species or pathogens                                                         Possible (26–50%)         Unknown      Unknown
14. Changes to vegetation, increased fire risk and/or direct physiological stress as a result of climatic changes  Likely (51–90%)           Major        High
15. Problems caused by small populations, including lack of genetic diversity                                      Likely (51–90%)           Moderate     Medium

Table 57 Risk assessment for Pterodroma cervicalis (if range expanded to include Norfolk Island)
Risk                                                                                                               Likelihood of exposure    Consequence  Threat rating
1. Loss and fragmentation of native vegetation through past land clearing                                          Unlikely (11–25%)         Minor        Low
2. Loss and fragmentation of native vegetation through current or future land clearing                             Unlikely (11–25%)         Negligible   Negligible
3. Degradation of native vegetation through past grazing or loss of nutrients                                      Likely (51–90%)           Major        High
4. Degradation of native vegetation through current or future grazing                                              Unlikely (11–25%)         Negligible   Negligible
5. Lack of available nest sites                                                                                    Possible (26–50%)         Minor        Low
6. Predation by rodents                                                                                            Almost certain (91–100%)  Extreme      Extreme
7. Predation by cats                                                                                               Almost certain (91–100%)  Extreme      Extreme
8. Predation or damage by chickens                                                                                 Unlikely (11–25%)         Negligible   Negligible
9. Predation by swamphens                                                                                          Likely