In one of his last actions as Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, Donald P. Hodel recommended to Congress that the entire coastal area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) be leased to the oil industry for drilling and exploration.

Environmentalists, naturalists and caribou everywhere moaned with grief. ANWR, in north-east Alaska, to date has been untouched by modern man.

Hodel's recommendation was criticized by environmentalists because, according to the Jan. 25th New York Times, "It did not include new information about the impact drilling could have on wildlife and did not consider reasonable alternatives (to drilling in the refuge)."

Environmentalists are not the only people criticizing Hodel's action. Writings from other agencies, including his own, challenge or contradict his report.

In one instance, Hodel's last-minute report reads, "This nation has proven that it need not choose between an improving the environment on the one hand, and exploration and development of the energy resources required for growth and survival on the other. We can have both."

Sounds like the old "cake and eat it too" routine.

The Fish and Wildlife Service, citing previous failures in Alaska, agrees: "Actual impacts to wilderness have been much greater than predicted (in Alaska) . . . Fish and wildlife habitat losses resulting from construction and operation of the (Alaskan) Pipeline System and Prudhoe Bay oilfields were greatly underestimated . . ."

"A similar lack of predictive capability may be expected," FWS concludes, "whenever development moves into new geographical areas." That is, should Big Oil move into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge it is not known what damage will occur to animals and their habitats. In previous years, our predictions have been "greatly underestimated."

In another striking difference, as National Geographic dubbed it, the Department of the Interior in 1987 issued a report concerning wildlife in the Arctic Refuge. It read, "Development (by oil interests) will result in widespread, long-term changes in wildlife habitats, wilderness environment, and Native community activities."

This contrasts with the last-minute report, which predicts that the effects of drilling upon "wildlife resources" will be "minor or negligible." (All of the quotes concerning these reports were taken from National Geographic, Dec. 1988, p. 862).

The report submitted to Congress by Donald Hodel has been challenged by environmentalists, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. His document is unreliable and should not be used in policy-making decisions.

Unfortunately, however, the former-Secretary's recommendations stand unless Congress knocks them down, or unless Manuel Lujan Jr., who is Bush's secretary-designate of the Interior, revokes the orders.

Fat chance.

In the past three years, Mr. Lujan has amassed what is widely considered the worst environmental voting record of any Representative or Senator, and "as a Congressman, co-sponsored legislation that would have permitted oil activity (in the Alaskan refuge)." (New York Times, Jan. 25).

Congress will protect the refuge then. Right?

Well . . . "From 1954 to 1986, the Government received $84 billion for offshore (drilling) leases. The lease-sale program is now second only to income taxes as a source of revenue to the general Treasury." (New York Times, Jan. 30).

As Congress prepares to decide whether or not to open ANWR to the petroleum industry, it must consider the desperate need for money. George Bush, who made his fortune drilling for oil -- who has promised not to raise taxes --won't even blink if he gets the chance to sign ANWR over to Big Oil. This, for Bush, is a quiet way to bring in some of the money he needs.

After exorbitant spending and tax cuts, it has become necessary to lease the environment for profit to fund the government.

Dr. Stanley Riggs of East Carolina State University adds perspective to the issue: "A lot of people say they're worried about the project, but they also get in their big cars and drive away without thinking one has anything to do with the other." He was not speaking of ANWR, but of another oil drilling project that is being pursued by Mobil Oil off the coast of North Carolina. (New York Times, Jan. 30).

His point, however, is not weakened. If oil interests gain control of the Alaskan refuge, they will not be entirely to blame. As a consumptive nation which takes oil for granted, we are part of the equation.

But we are also part of the governing equation. For those concerned, perhaps these will come in handy:

Representative William F. Clinger

1122 Longworth House Office Building

Washington DC, 20515

Senator John Heinz

277 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington DC, 20510

Senator Arlen Specter

331 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington DC, 20510

I hope so.