The "facts" presented in John Higi's Feb. 13 letter encouraging oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge warrant closer examination.

Higi justifies exploration in the ANWR by claiming that drilling operations around Prudhoe Bay, also on Alaska's North Slope, have had little impact on the area's wildlife, and that environmental regulations have been strictly enforced.

It is true that the Central Arctic caribou herd located near Prudhoe Bay has grown to an estimated 13,000 since the installation of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. This increase was caused primarily by the upset of the natural predator-prey balance: the subsequent decline in the area's wolf population. This herd also has access to suitable spring calving grounds.

The Porcupine herd of the ANWR, however, is quite different from the Central Arctic one, with a substantially larger migration range. Seventy-eight percent of the coastal plain targeted for exploration is currently used by the Porcupine herd as a calving ground.

It offers conditions not readily available in the rest of the herd's range: protection from predators and a favorable climate contribute to the high survival rate of newborn calves. Oil exploration on the plain would keep caribou away from the area and thus decrease the calf survival rate.

Besides caribou, populations of musk oxen, wolves, grizzly bears, polar bears, snow geese, peregrine falcons and golden eagles, all of which use the coastal plain at some time during the year, will be vulnerable to development.

Higi's claim that little environmental damage has occurred at Prudhoe Bay is inaccurate. Since 1973, 17,000 oil spills, releasing at a conservative estimate 2.5 million gallons into the environment, were reported to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

In 1985 alone, 521 spills accounting for over 82,000 gallons were reported. Additionally, the discrepancies in spill reports lead ADEC to believe that many spills go unreported.

Drilling mud wastes also create an environmental threat in the Prudhoe area. Though not legally hazardous, these wastes exceed EPA toxicity standards.

Millions of gallons of drilling mud annually are disposed of by dumping into pits which lead into surrounding ponds or by spraying onto the delicate tundra.

According to Higi, only .5 percent of the ANWR surface area will be directly affected. Besides the actual drilling pads, oil exploration entails hundreds of miles of roads, pipeline, and collector lines, airfields, salt-water treatment facilities, and strip mining for gravel used on the pads. All of these cause long-term damage to the environment

Higi also urges that oil extraction from ANWR will reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. However, the Interior Department estimates that there is only a one in five chance of finding oil in the ANWR.

If found, it would provide four percent of the nation's energy demand, or the equivalent of a mere 180-day supply. The three billion barrels that might be available there could be saved by improving fuel efficiency in cars by 1.7 miles per gallon.

But instead of opting for conservation, Congress has discontinued support for gas mileage standards and adopted the "drain America first" policy.

In final analysis, the damage that oil exploration will cause to ANWR must outweigh the minimal advantage to be gained by extracting a small amount of domestic oil that may or may not be there.

Americans would not allow the Grand Canyon to be filled with trash or the Yellowstone forest to be clear-cut by loggers; nor should they allow the short-sighted exploitation of the ANWR, one of our earth's last remaining undamaged ecosystems.