Strict assessment against all criteria give no reason to consider it threatened. The estimated rate of decline in range over the last 10 years does not exceed the 30% decline required for qualification as VU against Criterion A. There is no information on population size to assess against Criteria C and D1 and no life history models to inform assessments against Criterion E. The EOO and AOO and numbers of recent locations are below the Criterion B thresholds, but there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctations in the population. The number of locations is fewer than five but there is no plausible threat that could justify VU under Criterion D2. Given that the data are close to thresholds for Criteria B and D2, NT could be considered. However, this species would have been classed as RE until a single study found it to be relatively common in two spruce forests. This implies that the dataset is inadequate to describe the status and DD is more appropriate until such time as further information from spruce forests is available.