The upshot of the article is, the bees that were recently in the news for newly being endangered are a small number of species in a geographically confined area.
The commercially-important bees that are important for pollination are not endangered, and while mortality for these bees remains anomalously high due to colony collapse disorder, available stocks remain high because beekeepers have largely compensated for the additional mortality with larger investments in breeding additional queens and splitting of hives. This effort is reflected in the cost of honey, which has doubled since 2006, and the cost of commercial pollination services, which has also risen.
I suppose it's a useful description of the scope of the new "endangered" status, but to my mind, there's a pretty big difference between "the bees are doing just fine" and "commercially important bee populations remain stable because the economic burden of colony collapse disorder has been passed on to consumers of bee services".