dissenting:
The majority holds that, because the relevant provisions of the Wilderness Act and the Refuge Act are “materially ambiguous,” we are required to accord Chevron deference to USFS’s decision to allow the Tustumena Lake salmon enhancement project to go forward in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Because the majority’s ambiguity analysis is deeply flawed, and seeks to hold the English language to an unattainable standard of clarity — particularly in the statutory context — I respectfully dissent.
I. STATUTORY AMBIGUITY
A. Statutory Scheme
Before launching into the nuts and bolts of statutory analysis, it is useful to begin with an overview of the three main statutes at issue — the Wilderness Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (“Refuge Act”), and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”) — and how they interact in the Kenai Refuge. Enacted in 1964, the Wilderness Act sets forth this statement of purpose:
In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as “wilderness areas,” and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of them wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness ....
16 U.S.C. § 1131(a). Designation by Congress as a “wilderness area” triggers certain prohibitions on activities within that area, including commercial enterprises, construction of roads, use of motorized vehicles or equipment, landing of aircraft, and construction of structures or installations, with a few designated exceptions. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1133(c)-(d).
The Refuge Act, originally enacted in 1966 and amended in 1997, established the National Wildlife Refuge System as a cen*931tralized mechanism for administering “all lands, waters, and interests[ ] administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production areas.” 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(l). “The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” Id., § 668dd(a)(2). In contrast to the Wilderness Act, the Refuge Act contemplates more extensive non-preservation use of lands designated as wildlife refuges:
With respect to the System, it is the policy of the United States that—
(A) each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established;
(B) compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System, directly related to the mission of the System and the purposes of many refuges, and which generally fosters refuge management and through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
(C) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and
(D) when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate.
Id., § 668dd(a)(3); see also § 668dd(a)(4) (listing duties of Secretary in administering the System).
President Carter signed ANILCA into law in 1980 for the purpose of “pre-serv[ing] for the benefit, use, education, and inspiration of present and future generations certain lands and waters in the State of Alaska that contain nationally significant natural, scenic, historic, archeological, geological, scientific, wilderness, cultural, recreational, and wildlife values.” 16 U.S.C. § 3101(a). The next subsection explains Congress’s intent as follows:
It is the intent of Congress in this Act to preserve unrivaled scenic and geological values associated with natural landscapes; to provide for the maintenance of sound populations of, and habitat for, wildlife species of inestimable value to the citizens of Alaska and the Nation, including those species dependent on vast relatively undeveloped areas; to preserve in their natural state extensive unaltered arctic tundra, boreal forest, and coastal rainforest ecosystems; to protect the resources related to subsistence needs; to protect and preserve historic and archeological sites, rivers, and lands, and to preserve wilderness resource values and related recreational opportunities including but not limited to hiking, canoeing, fishing, and sport hunting, within large arctic and subarctic wildlands and on freeflowing rivers; and to maintain opportunities for scientific research and undisturbed ecosystems.
16 U.S.C. § 3101(b); see also id. § 3101(c) (setting forth statutory intent “to provide the opportunity for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to continue to do so”).
All three statutes apply to the Kenai Refuge. The ultimate question, then, is this: Taking into account the boundaries *932established by the three sets of statutory mandates, does the Tustumena Lake commercial salmon enhancement project fall within those boundaries? Even if the project arguably falls within the range of activity permitted under the Refuge Act and ANILCA — a point I do not concede — it is clearly barred by the Wilderness Act.
B. The Wilderness Act
Under the Wilderness Act, “each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(b). The Act defines “wilderness” as:
[A]n area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily with forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
16 U.S.C. § 1131(c) (emphasis added).
Under the familiar deference test established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., no deference is owed an agency’s interpretation of the relevant statute that is at odds with the intent of Congress unambiguously expressed. 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); Socop-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001). “If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778.
These “tools of construction require us first to engage in a textual analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and to read the words of a statute ‘in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’ ” Student Loan Fund of Idaho, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 272 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 122 S.Ct. 1230, 152 L.Ed.2d 258 (2002)). In other words, we read the statute “as a whole, giving effect to each word and making every effort not to interpret a provision in a manner that renders other provisions of the same statute inconsistent, meaningless or superfluous.” Boise Cascade Corp. v. EPA, 942 F.2d 1427, 1432 (9th Cir.1991). A “fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979)). Where such words are defined, “[a] definition which declares what a term ‘means’ ... excludes any meaning that is not stated.” Smith, 155 F.3d at 1057 (internal citations omitted). When an agency’s interpretation of a statute is in conflict with the plain language of the statute, we do not defer to *933the agency’s interpretation. Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662, 666 (9th Cir.1996).
1. “Wilderness”
The language at issue in the Wilderness Act is not ambiguous unless we find ambiguity simply because the entire English language contains inherent ambiguity. In fact, as statutes go, the Wilderness Act is remarkably explicit. The Act provides that USFW “shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(b). As defined in the Act, the Wilderness Area must be “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” § 1131(c). Black’s Law Dictionary defines “natural” as “[u]ntouehed by man or by influence of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word ‘artificial.’ The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular....” Id. at 1026 (6th ed. 1990); “Existing in or formed by nature; not artificially made or constructed; not manufactured or processed ...” 2 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1889 (1993 edition). These definitions comport fully with our everyday understanding of the term “natural.”
Protecting the “natural condition” of the Wilderness Area, then, includes protecting against the introduction of “artificial” propagation programs that disturb the natural ecological processes of the Refuge. It is abundantly clear that the salmon enhancement in Kenai is just such a program. The record is clear on how the salmon fishery program works: Fish eggs are collected at the mouth of Bear Creek in the summer, and fry are reintroduced at the same location the following spring. These activities all take place within Kenai on an ongoing, annual basis. In no sense do they preserve Kenai’s “natural conditions,” whether one views that term as of a time prior to all human contact or as of some later time: The record reflects that the sole purpose of the project is to enhance the salmon population for commercial fishing in Cook Inlet. This is not an area where the salmon at issue are endangered or at risk, and the record contains no indication that salmon were ever present in the kinds of numbers that the fishery project produces.
Far from maintaining “natural” conditions, the introduction of hatchery salmon populations into a natural lake ecosystem poses a risk of serious ecological problems. Among the concerns noted by USFW, the mixing of hatchery salmon with natural salmon runs entering the Kasilof River and Tustumena Lake system may result in “decreased biodiversity on the refuge,” posing a threat to natural salmon populations dependent upon such diversity, genetic risks from the derivation of 6,000,000 hatchery-reared fry from a single spawning population at Bear Creek, increased competition and “perhaps unnatural advantage over the other sockeye runs,” as well as the potential for disease and other ecological and behavioral risks.
In numerous documents USFW itself recognizes the tension between the mandate of the Wilderness Act and the Project. In its “Compatibility Determination,” USFW observed that “[wjilderness resources will be affected by this project .... The project’s potentially biggest intrusion of wilderness management principles is its failure [to] allow natural processes to dominate.” Similarly, a USFW “Briefing Statement” prepared by the Alaska Regional Director, states that the Lake’s value as a “natural system” is “compromised” by the “artificial enhancement,” noting that the Project’s activities, including construction of temporary facilities, stocking of fry, and potential altera*934tion of natural fish stocks, “may ... violate the intent and purpose of the Wilderness Act ...” The risks associated with the introduction of hatchery salmon into populations of natural salmon are well understood by the scientific community,1 not to mention within government.2
2. “Permanent”
The majority’s claim not to understand what “permanent” means is also a red herring in this context. No one disputes that the fishery project effectuates an annual, ongoing alteration of the natural ecological balance in Kenai by removing salmon eggs and reintroducing large numbers of hatchery-raised fry to Bear Creek. The entire purpose of the project is to create a lasting alteration in the number and type of salmon present in Cook Inlet and, perforce, Bear Creek in Kenai. See, e.g., Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1683 (1993 ed.) (defining “permanent” as “continuing or enduring (as in the same state, status, place) without fundamental or marked change: not subject to fluctuation or alteration: fixed or intended to be fixed: LASTING, STABLE”); Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989, online version) (definition la of “permanent”: “Continuing or designed to continue indefinitely without change; abiding, lasting, enduring; persistent. Opposed to temporary.”).
3. “Commercial enterprise”/“witliin”
Again, there is no ambiguity here. As discussed above, the egg harvésting and fry return all unquestionably occur within the boundaries of the Kenai Refuge. And the record reflects that enhancement of commercial fishing stock in Cook Inlet is the sole purpose for the program at issue. *935Under the Wilderness Act, “[e]xcept as specifically provided for in this chapter, ... there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this chapter ...” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c); see Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. Jensen, 108 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that Wilderness Act prohibits commercial fishing in wilderness areas of the Glacier Bay National Park).
The question whether the Project in dispute constitutes an impermissible “commercial enterprise” under § 1133(c) turns on the definition of the term as used in the statute. Though there are no judicial opinions or agency regulations discussing an interpretation of the term “commercial enterprise” in the context of the Wilderness Act, the plain, common sense meaning of the term, to which we must turn, Smith, 155 F.3d at 1057, reveals that the only reasonable interpretation of the term would prohibit the artificial propagation project.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “commercial,” somewhat tautologically, as “[r]elates to or is connected with trade and traffic or commerce in general; is occupied with business or commerce.” Id. at 270. Webster’s defines “commercial” as “l.a. [o]f or relating to commerce, b. [e]ngaged in commerce, c. [i]nvolved in work designed or planned for the mass market.” Second New Riverside University Dictionary 286 (1988). While true, as defendant notes, that courts have struggled with different understandings of the term “commercial” in different contexts and with regard to different statutes,3 in the context of the Wilderness Act, the term is relatively straightforward — activities purposefully oriented toward industry and commerce are prohibited, unless otherwise excepted, in the Wilderness Area.
Here, defendant concedes that over eighty percent of the fish produced from the Project are harvested by commercial fishermen, to the tune of approximately $1.6 million annually on average. Although it is true that CIAA has non-profit status, that a general, though limited, public benefit is conferred by CIAA’s release of the hatchery salmon (in terms of sport fishing and general salmon enhancement), and that the State of Alaska closely regulates CIAA’s activities, these facts do not change the underlying reality that the CIAA operates primarily as a vehicle to enhance the commercial salmon fishing industry — the industry whose success is the condition precedent for the organization’s continued existence. Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals v. Humane Soc. of U.S., Inc., 50 F.3d 710, 713 (9th Cir.1995) (“A nonprofit organization ... may engage in commercial activity”).
The fact that the commercial benefit itself is not conferred within the Wilderness Area is neither here nor there. To accept such logic would be to accept with it the argument that so long as a commercial transaction itself occurs outside the Area, commercial operations, such as logging or removing flora or fauna for commercial sale, can operate undeterred tvithin the Wilderness Area. This analysis is not reconcilable with the plain language of the statute and its obvious intent.
*936USFW has noticeably recognized the commercial nature of the Project. The Fishery Management Plan for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge characterizes the Project as “commercial enhancement of sockeye salmon populations,” and a letter from the Refuge Manager to the Regional Solicitor states that the Project is “no longer experimental in nature, nor is restoration of fish stocks an objective,” but rather “[i]t is strictly an enhancement effort to increase the number of sockeye salmon available to the commercial fishery.” It is unreasonable to conclude that the Project does not constitute a commercial enterprise.
4. “Management”
What is truly extraordinary here is that, despite the majority’s purported inability to understand what terms like “wilderness,” “natural,” and “permanent” mean, the majority nonetheless maintains such a firm grasp on the meaning of the word “manage” as to read into it an entire swath of regulatory activity flatly incompatible with the statute. The majority sets up a straw man of “strict nonintervention” — an approach to wilderness management and protection that no one in this case has advanced — and claims that the term “natural” must be ambiguous because it could encompass that definition. This argument is specious.
The majority itself admits that the term “management” “suggests affirmative steps taken to maintain wilderness character.” The definition from Webster’s Third, quoted by the majority, specifies that management may entail adjustment of ecological factors “to best meet the needs and ensure the survival of (a wüd animal).” This is precisely the problem with the majority’s position: In no respect does the introduction of millions of hatchery-raised salmon fry into a wilderness environment affirmatively maintain the wilderness character of Bear Creek. Nor does the fishery program do anything to best meet the needs or ensure the survival of a “wild” animal: Again, it involves introducing millions of hatchery-raised fry, at considerable ecological risk to Bear Creek and to its wild salmon population.
No one is suggesting that the presence of the temporary camp and weir at Bear Creek present a problem per se. If they had been established as part of a measure taken to restore or preserve the natural conditions of the Kenai Refuge (e.g., to restore a natural salmon run, or for ecological research purposes), they would be fine. Rather, the problem lies in the fishery project’s annual, ongoing alteration of the natural ecological balance in Kenai by removing eggs and reintroducing large numbers of hatchery-raised fry to Bear Creek. In no sense does this constitute “management,” much less “protection,” of a wilderness area within the meaning of the Wilderness Act.
C. Refuge Act
The Refuge Act allows USFW to “permit the use of any area within the [National Wildlife Refuge] System for any purpose, ... whenever [the Secretary] determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such areas were established.” 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(d)(l)(A); Wilderness Soc’y v. Babbitt, 5 F.3d 383, 388 (9th Cir.1993) (noting “compatibility” standard). “The term ‘compatible use’ means a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge.” 16 U.S.C. § 668ee(l).
One purpose of the Kenai Refuge is to “conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity.” AN-*937ILCA § 303(4), 94 Stat. 2391 (1980). USFW has defined “natural diversity” to mean the “number and relative abundance of indigenous species which would occur without human interference.” Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The parties dispute the meanings of these definitions.4
It is simply impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Project conflicts with USFW’s understood mandate to preserve natural diversity, since the number and abundance of indigenous species is directly altered by the enhancement project, changing significantly the “natural diversity” that exists “without human interference.” Coupled with USFW’s admission that “the project ... cannot be considered as supporting Refuge purposes” (“Compatibility Determination”), it is clear that the Project cannot possibly be reconciled with the purposes of the Refuge Act.5
Because nothing in the record suggests that the “natural” state of the salmon population in the Kenai Refuge was ever a larger population than occurred naturally without the project activities, nothing about those activities suggests that they are promoting or preserving that “natural” balance. While the Refuge Act does have multiple statutory purposes, nothing in the Refuge Act or ANILCA suggests that the maintenance of “optimum sustained yield levels” or enhancement of fish populations is to take place in areas where doing so will have a detrimental effect on the ecological balance. The Kenai Refuge is certainly not the only place available for such activities, and the general mandates of ANILCA, which do not specify where the enhancement activities are to occur, do not permit USFW to override the clear mandate of the Wilderness Act as applied to the Kenai Refuge.
Moreover, the fact that ANILCA allows some recreational and subsistence activities to occur within the Area does not, as the district court and the majority mistakenly conclude, render non-recreational, non-subsistence activities permissible. To the contrary, Congress’s specification of qualifying recreational and subsistence activities, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3101(b), 3123, suggests that Congress recognized the need to carve out explicit exceptions to the otherwise controlling mandate to preserve the Area’s natural conditions. “Where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent.” Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 616-17, 100 S.Ct. 1905, 64 L.Ed.2d 548 (1980); Koniag, Inc. v. Koncor Forest Resource, 39 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir.1994).
In short, nothing about ANILCA or the Refuge Act allows USFS to engage in commercial fishery projects in protected *938wilderness areas that are flatly inconsistent with the Wilderness Act and not specifically permitted by the statutes themselves. Were we dealing with recreational or subsistence activities that were required by ANILCA or the Refuge Act but somehow incompatible with the mandates of the Wilderness Act, that would be a more difficult question, involving two statutes in direct tension with one another. But, in this case, ANILCA’s general mandate to “provide for the maintenance of sound populations of ... wildlife species” in Alaska does not trump the Wilderness Act’s directive to preserve wilderness areas, particularly where there are other areas in Alaska in which to carry out ANILCA’s mandate.
II. AMBIGUITY “AS APPLIED”
The ambiguity analysis required under Chevron does not take place in a vacuum. It is not enough that the language at issue could conceivably be ambiguous under some circumstances not actually presented; if this were the case, literally every conceivable statute would fail the first prong of Chevron. Rather, the ambiguity must actually be tied to the case or controversy at issue. To offer an analogy: Given a hypothetical statute that required federal agencies to “do things to preserve the trees in the Kenai Refuge,” we could all find it ambiguous. However, if a logging company obtained a permit allowing it to cut down every tree in the refuge, would we then say that the agency’s interpretation was permissible because the statute is ambiguous? Of course not. Even though the statute may be ambiguous in hypothetical situations, this does not make it ambiguous as to the challenged conduct.
Thus, even if the majority is correct that the language of the Wilderness Act contains some ambiguities — a point that I do not concede — the ambiguities are immaterial as applied to the facts of this case. Keep in mind the nature of the salmon fishery project: Each summer, approximately ten million salmon eggs are removed from Bear Creek, within Kenai. The eggs are incubated outside of the wilderness area, and then, the following spring, approximately six million fry are released into the mouth of Bear Creek, also within Kenai. The project is, in its own terms, a “commercial enhancement project” — its purpose, in short, is to increase the number of salmon available to be fished by commercial fishermen. Even if the terms “wilderness,” “natural,” or “within” contain some ambiguity, then, the introduction of large numbers of salmon fry into Bear Creek in order to enhance the salmon stock for commercial fishing is simply not “preserving the natural ecological processes as they would exist in their wild state” under — any interpretation.
III. CONCLUSION
The clear language of both the Wilderness Act and the Refuge Act evince Congress’s intent broadly to protect and preserve the wilderness character of our national Refuge and Wilderness Areas. Congress could well be persuaded someday that salmon enhancement programs designed and operated primarily for the benefit of the commercial fishing industry can be compatible with the protectionist mandate of the Refuge Act and can be made an additional exception to the activities allowed in the Wilderness. But that is for Congress alone to decide and would require legislative authorization.
In the meanwhile, USFS has not developed any sort of record as to what the “natural” wild salmon population was or is in Kenai prior to the commercial fishery project, and what the competition among species there is and was. Currently, nothing in the record suggests that the species was diminished or in danger — only that it could be enhanced for commercial pur*939poses. Based on the statutes we now have in place, these commercial enhancement activities directly contravene Congress’s mandates in the Wilderness and Refuge Acts, and allow commercial interests to trump the preservation of the wilderness conditions in the Kenai Wilderness Area. I cannot acquiesce in this result or in its reasoning. I therefore dissent.
. Plaintiffs cite a number of articles discussing the risks to wild fish posed by hatchery projects. See Jack Sterne, Supplementation of Wild Salmon Stocks: A Cure for the Hatchery Problem or More Problem Hatcheñes?, 23 Coastal Management 123, 126-29 (1995) and sources cited therein.
. As mentioned in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1158 (D.Or.2001) (holding that NMFS decision to list only natural spawning coho salmon as "threatened” was arbitrary and capricious, and thus invalid), the NMFS's "Hatchery Policy” discusses the issues surrounding artificial propagation and the potential effects of interaction with natural salmon runs. 58 Fed. Reg. 17,573. In part, the Policy states:
Because there is ... considerable uncertainty about artificial propagation as a means to increase natural salmon populations, and because artificial propagation may have profound consequences for the viability of natural salmon populations, consideration of its use should be based on an objective assessment of genetic and ecological risks, balancing the potential for deleterious effects against risk to the population ... if artificial propagation is not implemented. Genetic problems that may arise through artificial propagation are of three general types. First, taking wild broodstock may contribute directly to the decline of the natural population.... Second, ... artificial propagation can substantially reduce genetic differences between populations.... Finally, adaptation to hatchery conditions can lead to domestication during artificial propagation. ...
Artificial propagation may also pose a variety of ecological risks to salmon populations. These risks include increased competition and predation, displacement of natural fish, altered migratory and spawning behavior, and disease transfer.
These genetic and ecological risks of artificial propagation can pose serious threats to natural salmon populations. The viability of natural populations depends on their genetic and ecological diversity, and the use of artificial propagation to restore salmon abundance should not be allowed to erode this diversity.
Id.; see also National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Salmon Hatchery Q & As, available at http:// www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/Q & A/ (discussing genetic, ecological, and behavioral risks associated with the introduction of hatchery salmon into natural, wild salmon runs).
. In most instances, such cases discuss statutes directly related to tax and commerce. See, e.g., Portland Golf Club v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 497 U.S. 154, 161, 110 S.Ct. 2780, 111 L.Ed.2d 126 (1990) (contrasting ''commercial” with "tax-exempt”); Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, 504 U.S. 607, 612, 112 S.Ct. 2160, 119 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992) (interpreting "commercial” in context of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d)). We are dealing here with an environmental statute, with respect to which the term "commercial” should be interpreted by its plain, common sense meaning.
. USFW recently adopted a regulation that the agency "may only authorize public or private economic use of the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge, in accordance with 16 U.S.C. § 715s, where we determine that the use contributes to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System mission.” 65 Fed. Reg. 62458 (Oct. 18, 2000), codified at 50 C.F.R. § 29.1 (emphasis added). Though this regulation specifically refers to compatibility determinations under another provision of the Refuge Act, as defendant notes, it is not irrelevant to observe the agency’s continued concern for limiting economic activity in wilderness areas.
. Defendant’s reliance upon the decision in Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. Jensen, 108 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir.1997), where the court determined, inter alia, that allowing commercial fishing in non-wilderness areas of the national park did not conflict with the directive to conserve fish and wildlife, is misplaced. No hatchery fish were introduced and no depletion of natural fish runs was involved.