OCS Study MMS 2006-020 

North Slope Economy, 

1965 to 2005 

Final 

Prepared for the 

Minerals Management Service 

April 2006 

In association with 

EDAW

Prepared by 

880 H Street, Suite 210, 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

T: 907.274.5600 

F: 907.274.5601 

1801 Roeder Ave., Suite 124 

Bellingham, WA 98225 

T: 360.715.1808 

F: 360.715.3588 

W: www.northerneconomics.com E: mail@norecon.com 

 OCS Study 

 MMS 2006-020 

Final Report 

North Slope Economy 

1965 to 2005 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Alaska Region 

Social and Economic Studies Program 

3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

Prepared by: 

Northern Economics, Inc. 

880 H Street, Suite 210 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

in association with 

EDAW, Inc. 

April 2006 
Disclaimer 

This report has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and approved for publication. 

Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Service, nor 

does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendations 

for use. The United States government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. 

The study was funded by the Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. under task orders 85079 and 39092. 

Report Availability 

Document is available to the public through the 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, Virginia 22161 

Fax: 703-605-6900 

www.ntis.gov
 Final v 

Contents 

Section Page 

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. 1

Changes in Employment and Economic Activities............................................................................... 1

The Role of Local Government ..........................................................................................................1

The Role of For-Profit Alaska Native Corporations..............................................................................2

The Role of Federal, State, and Tribal Governments and Non-Profit Organizations and Important 

Economic Linkages in the Region........................................................................................ 2

Individual and Household Economic Impacts and Responses ............................................................. 2

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Analytical Framework/Approach .........................................................................................1

1.2 Data Issues .........................................................................................................................7

2 Historical Economic and Political Context................................................................................ 9

2.1 Commercialization and Acculturation ................................................................................. 9

2.1.1 Arrival of Euro-Americans and the Period of Commercial Whaling ...................................... 9

2.1.2 Post-Commercial Whaling Period .....................................................................................12

2.2 Political Transformation of the Region...............................................................................14

2.3 Major Milestones..............................................................................................................17

3 Structure of the North Slope Economy ................................................................................... 21

3.1 North Slope Employment by Industry................................................................................ 21

3.1.1 Employment by Place of Residence based on Data from NSB Census Reports................... 22

3.1.2 Employment by Place of Residence based on Data from Alaska Department of Labor 

and Workforce Development ...........................................................................................28

3.1.3 Resident and Non-resident Employment by Place of Work................................................ 33

3.2 Changes and Trends in Labor Force Composition .............................................................36

3.2.1 Gender.............................................................................................................................36

3.2.2 Ethnicity ...........................................................................................................................39

3.3 Changes in Structural Composition of the North Slope Economy.......................................45

3.3.1 Size of Firms.....................................................................................................................45

3.3.2 Public Sector and Private Sector Jobs ................................................................................ 47

3.3.3 Types of Occupations.......................................................................................................48

4 The Role of Local Government................................................................................................ 51

4.1 Overview of NSB Government.......................................................................................... 51

4.2 Overview of City Governments......................................................................................... 51

4.3 The Role of the North Slope Borough ............................................................................... 52

4.3.1 Primary Revenues and Expenditures .................................................................................52

4.3.2 Trends and Issues in NSB Revenues and Expenditures....................................................... 54

4.3.3 Per Capita Perspective......................................................................................................59

4.3.4 Possible Future Shortfall in Revenues ................................................................................ 61
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

vi Final 

4.4 Trends and Issues in Community Fiscal Resources .............................................................63

4.4.1 Barrow..............................................................................................................................65

4.4.2 Anaktuvuk Pass.................................................................................................................72

4.4.3 Atqasuk ............................................................................................................................77

4.4.4 Kaktovik ...........................................................................................................................82

4.4.5 Nuiqsut ............................................................................................................................87

4.4.6 Point Hope.......................................................................................................................92

4.4.7 Point Lay ..........................................................................................................................97

4.4.8 Wainwright.......................................................................................................................98

5 The Role of For-Profit Alaska Native Corporations ...............................................................103

5.1 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ...............................................................................103

5.2 Alaska Native Corporations Legal Structure .....................................................................105

5.3 Linkages between Alaska Native Corporations and the North Slope Oil Industry..............107

5.4 Competitive Advantages of Alaska Native Corporations ...................................................108

5.4.1 U.S. Small Business Administration 8(a) Program .............................................................108

5.4.2 HUBZone Empowerment Contracting Program...............................................................109

5.4.3 Indian Self Determination Act and Education Assistance Act of 1975...............................109

5.4.4 Indian Incentive Program ................................................................................................109

5.5 Arctic Slope Regional Corporation...................................................................................110

5.5.1 History of Alaska Slope Regional Corporation..................................................................110

5.5.2 Corporate Structure of Alaska Slope Regional Corporation and its Subsidiaries and 

Joint Ventures .................................................................................................................112

5.5.3 Alaska Slope Regional Corporation Revenues and Dividends...........................................116

5.5.4 Alaska Slope Regional Corporation Employment .............................................................120

5.5.5 ASRC Education Contributions........................................................................................127

5.5.6 Other Benefits Provided by Alaska Slope Regional Corporation .......................................128

5.6 Employment by Alaska Native Corporations in the North Slope Borough.........................129

5.6.1 Atqasuk Corporation.......................................................................................................130

5.6.2 Cully Corporation ...........................................................................................................131

5.6.3 Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation ..........................................................................................132

5.6.4 Kuukpik Corporation ......................................................................................................132

5.6.5 Nunamiut Corporation....................................................................................................133

5.6.6 Olgoonik Corporation.....................................................................................................133

5.6.7 Tikigaq Corporation........................................................................................................135

5.6.8 Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation .......................................................................................136

6 The Role of Other Government and Non-profit Organizations and the Economic 

Linkages among Entities ......................................................................................................139

6.1 The Role of the Federal Government ..............................................................................139

6.1.1 Federal Land Ownership and Management.....................................................................139

6.1.2 Federal Employment.......................................................................................................144

6.1.3 Federal Spending............................................................................................................145

6.2 The Role of the State Government ..................................................................................149
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

 Final vii

6.2.1 State Land Ownership and Management ........................................................................ 149

6.2.2 State Employment ..........................................................................................................150

6.2.3 State Spending................................................................................................................151

6.3 The Role of Tribal Governments ..................................................................................... 154

6.4 Role of Non-Profit Organizations .................................................................................... 156

6.4.1 Ilisagvik College ..............................................................................................................157

6.4.2 Tagiugmiullu Nunamiuulu Housing Authority.................................................................. 158

6.4.3 Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA) and Other Non-Profit Organizations Involved 

in Health Care................................................................................................................ 161

6.5 Economic Linkages Among Entities ................................................................................. 161

7 Individual and Household Economic Impacts and Responses............................................... 163

7.1.1 Community and Household Services .............................................................................. 163

7.1.2 Employment and Income................................................................................................177

7.1.3 Cost of Living.................................................................................................................. 188

7.1.4 Demographic Shift.......................................................................................................... 189

7.1.5 Harvest of Subsistence Resources.................................................................................... 192

7.1.6 Quality of Life ................................................................................................................198

7.2 Overview of Trends and Issues Affecting Household Economies...................................... 200

7.2.1 The Period from 1960 to 1971 ....................................................................................... 200

7.2.2 The Period from 1972 to the Present ..............................................................................201

7.3 Changes in Household Characteristics............................................................................. 202

8 References........................................................................................................................... 205

Appendix A. Projects Funded by Outside Sources in North Slope Communities.................................... 215 

Table Page 

Table 1-1. Village Corporations on the North Slope ........................................................................... 4

Table 2-1. Bowhead Whales Landed per Year by Decade during the Post-Commercial 

Subsistence Whaling Era............................................................................................................13

Table 3-1. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Borough, 1980, 1988, 

1993, 1998, and 2003 ..............................................................................................................23

Table 3-2. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Borough, 1980, 1988, 

1993, 1998, and 2003 ..............................................................................................................23

Table 3-3. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1980 ............. 24

Table 3-4. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1980.........24

Table 3-5. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1993/1994 .... 25

Table 3-6. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Communities, 

1993/1994................................................................................................................................25

Table 3-7. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Communities, 

1998/1999................................................................................................................................26

Table 3-8. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Communities, 

1998/1999................................................................................................................................26

Table 3-9. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Communities, 2003 ............. 27
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

viii Final 

Table 3-10. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Communities, 2003 .......28

Table 3-11. Number of Establishments by Range of Employees, All Industries, North Slope 

Region, 1982-1997 ...................................................................................................................46

Table 3-12. Number of Establishments by Range of Employees for all Industries, North Slope 

Borough, 1982-2000 .................................................................................................................47

Table 4-1. Assessed Values and General Obligation Debt, North Slope Borough, 1972-2003 ...........60

Table 4-2. Local Revenues, City of Barrow, 1973-2000....................................................................68

Table 4-3. Non-Local Revenues, City of Barrow, 1973-2000............................................................70

Table 4-4. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Barrow.........................71

Table 4-5. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Barrow ................72

Table 4-6. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Anaktuvuk Pass ............76

Table 4-7. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Anaktuvuk 

Pass...........................................................................................................................................77

Table 4-8. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Atqasuk .......................81

Table 4-9. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 Category, City of Atqasuk ....................82

Table 4-10. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Kaktovik.....................86

Table 4-11. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Kaktovik ............87

Table 4-12. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Nuiqsut......................91

Table 4-13. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 1998 by Category, City of Nuiqsut .............92

Table 4-14. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Point Hope ................96

Table 4-15. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Point Hope........97

Table 4-16. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Wainwright..............101

Table 4-17. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Wainwright......102

Table 5-1. Villages and Village Corporations on the North Slope ....................................................104

Table 5-2. Timeline of Alaska Slope Regional Corporation Activities ...............................................111

Table 5-3. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Revenues, Dividends, and Shareholders’ Equity, 

1973-2002 ..............................................................................................................................118

Table 5-4. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Consolidated Income Statement, 1995-2002............120

Table 5-5. Distribution of Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation in the North 

Slope Borough, 1992...............................................................................................................123

Table 5-6. Distribution of Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation in the North Slope 

Borough, 1997 ........................................................................................................................124

Table 5-7. Distribution of Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation in the North 

Slope Borough, 2002...............................................................................................................125

Table 5-8. Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Selected Subsidiaries, and Joint 

Ventures, 1977- 2002..............................................................................................................126

Table 5-9. Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and Village Corporations in the 

North Slope Borough, 1981, 1988, 1993, and 1998................................................................129

Table 5-10. Atqasuk Corporation and Subsidiary Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 ...........131

Table 5-11. Cully Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1983-2002.......................................132

Table 5-12. Kuukpik Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 ..................................133

Table 5-13. Nunamiut Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 ...............................133

Table 5-14. Olgoonik Corporation and Subsidiary Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 .........135

Table 5-15. Tikigak Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 ....................................136

Table 5-16. Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002...................137
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

 Final ix

Table 6-1. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the City of Atqasuk, 1987-2004 ............... 140

Table 6-2. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the City of Barrow, 1987-2005 ................ 141

Table 6-3. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the City of Nuiqsut, 1987-2005 ............... 142

Table 6-4. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the City of Wainwright, 1987-1995.......... 142

Table 6-5. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the North Slope Borough, 1987-2005...... 143

Table 6-6. Per Capita Federal Expenditures in Remote Rural Census Areas including the North 

Slope Borough, 2002 .............................................................................................................. 149

Table 6-7. Assets and Income of Major Non-profit Organizations, North Slope Borough, 2004 ...... 157

Table 6-8. Funded Projects for Tagiugmiullu Nunamiuulu Housing Authority, North Slope 

Communities...........................................................................................................................158

Table 7-1. Water and Sanitation Sources, North Slope Communities, 2000.................................... 164

Table 7-2. Educational Attainment of North Slope Residents, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 

2000.......................................................................................................................................167

Table 7-3. Educational Attainment in North Slope Communities, 1990 and 2000 .......................... 168

Table 7-4. Housing Characteristics of North Slope Residents, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 

2000.......................................................................................................................................171

Table 7-5. Housing Characteristics of North Slope Communities, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 

2000.......................................................................................................................................172

Table 7-6. Median Household Income of North Slope Residents, 1959, 1969, 1979, 1989, and 

1999.......................................................................................................................................180

Table 7-7. Median Household Income in North Slope Communities, 1959, 1969, 1979, 1989, 

and 1999 ................................................................................................................................181

Table 7-8. Percent of North Slope Residents Whose Income was Below the Poverty Level, 

1959-1999..............................................................................................................................184

Table 7-9. Unemployment and Underemployment Rate of North Slope Residents, 1980-2003...... 184

Table 7-10. Average Number of Weeks Worked by Employed Working-Age North Slope 

Residents, 1989 and 1999.......................................................................................................185

Table 7-11. Average Number of Weeks Worked by All Working-Age North Slope Residents, 

1989 and 1999 .......................................................................................................................186

Table 7-12. Income Distribution of Alaska Native Households on the North Slope, 1959, 1989, 

and 1999 ................................................................................................................................187

Table 7-13. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Barrow, 1987, 1988, and 1989 .............................. 194

Table 7-14. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Kaktovik, 1985, 1986, and 1992. ........................... 194

Table 7-15. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Nuiqsut, 1985 and 1993. ....................................... 195

Table 7-16. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Point Lay, 1987...................................................... 195

Table 7-17. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Wainwright, 1988 and 1989 .................................. 196

Table A-1. Anaktuvuk Pass Projects Funded by Outside Sources ....................................................215 

Table A-2. Atqasuk Projects Funded by Outside Sources................................................................ 216

Table A-3. Barrow Projects Funded by Outside Sources .................................................................217

Table A-4. Kaktovik Projects Funded by Outside Agencies ............................................................. 219

Table A-5. Nuiqsut Capital Improvement Projects Funded by Outside Sources...............................220

Table A-6. Point Hope Capital Project Expenditures Funded by Outside Sources ........................... 221

Table A-7. Point Lay Capital Projects Funded by Outside Sources ..................................................223

Table A-8. Wainwright Capital Projects Funded by Outside Sources............................................... 223 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

x Final 

Figure Page 

Figure 1-1. Analytical Framework for the Structure of the North Slope Economy ................................3

Figure 1-2. Analytical Framework for the Role of Local Government in Shaping the North Slope 

Economy .....................................................................................................................................4

Figure 1-3. Analytical Framework for the Role of Alaska Native Corporations in Shaping the 

North Slope Economy..................................................................................................................5

Figure 1-4. Analytical Framework for Individual and Household Economic Impacts and 

Responses ...................................................................................................................................7

Figure 2-1. Milestones in the North Slope Economy since Alaska Statehood .....................................18

Figure 3-1. Map of North Slope Communities. .................................................................................22

Figure 3-2. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by SIC Sector, North Slope Borough, 1993-2002.....29

Figure 3-3. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Anaktuvuk Pass, 

1993-2002 ................................................................................................................................29

Figure 3-4. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Atqasuk, 1993 to 2002 .......30

Figure 3-5. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Barrow, 1993-2002 ............30

Figure 3-6. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Kaktovik, 1993-2002 ..........31

Figure 3-7. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Nuiqsut, 1993-2002 ...........31

Figure 3-8. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Point Hope, 1993-2002......32

Figure 3-9. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Point Lay, 1993-2002.........32

Figure 3-10. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Wainwright, 1993-2002 ...33

Figure 3-11. Estimated Number of Resident and Non-resident Jobs, North Slope Borough, 

1965-2003 ................................................................................................................................34

Figure 3-12. Estimated Number of Resident and Non-resident Jobs by Place of Work, North 

Slope Borough, 1968-1979........................................................................................................35

Figure 3-13. Estimated Number of Resident and Non-resident Jobs by Place of Work, North 

Slope Borough, 1980-2001........................................................................................................36

Figure 3-14. Percent of Male and Female Resident Workers by Industry, North Slope Borough, 

1980 .........................................................................................................................................37

Figure 3-15. Percent of Male and Female Resident Workers by Industry, North Slope Borough, 

1988 .........................................................................................................................................38

Figure 3-16. Percent of Male and Female Resident Workers by Industry, North Slope Borough, 

2000 .........................................................................................................................................38

Figure 3-17. Percent of Alaska Native and Non-Native Resident Workers by Sector, North Slope 

Borough, 1980 ..........................................................................................................................39

Figure 3-18. Percent of Alaska Native and Non-Native Resident Workers by Sector, North Slope 

Borough, 1988 .........................................................................................................................40

Figure 3-19. Percent of Iñupiat and Non-Iñupiat Resident Workers in the Public Sector, North 

Slope Borough, 1998.................................................................................................................40

Figure 3-20. Percent of Iñupiat and Non-Iñupiat Resident Workers in Private Industries, North 

Slope Borough, 1998.................................................................................................................41

Figure 3-21. Percent of Resident Employment by Gender and by Sector, North Slope 

Communities, 1980...................................................................................................................41

Figure 3-22. Percent of Resident Employment by Gender and by Sector, North Slope 

Communities, 2003...................................................................................................................42
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

 Final xi

Figure 3-23. Percent of Resident Employment by Ethnicity and by Sector, North Slope 

Communities, 1980...................................................................................................................43

Figure 3-24. Percent of Resident Employment by Ethnicity and by Sector, North Slope 

Communities, 1993...................................................................................................................43

Figure 3-25. Percent of Resident Employment by Ethnicity and by Sector, North Slope 

Communities, 1998...................................................................................................................44

Figure 3-26. Percent of Resident Employment by Ethnicity and by Sector, North Slope Borough, 

2003.........................................................................................................................................45

Figure 3-27. Share of Number of Establishments by Firm Size, Average from 1982 to 1997.............. 46

Figure 3-28. Share of Employment by Type of Worker, 1980, 1990, 2000....................................... 48

Figure 3-29. North Slope Employment by Occupation, 1980, 1990, and 2000 ................................ 49

Figure 4-1. Oil and Gas Property Tax Revenues, North Slope Borough, 1975-2003.......................... 55

Figure 4-2. Revenues Excluding Oil and Gas Property Tax Revenues, North Slope Borough, 

1975-2002................................................................................................................................56

Figure 4-3. Major Expenditures, North Slope Borough, 1973-2000 .................................................. 57

Figure 4-4. Projected Assessed Values, North Slope Borough, 1998-2009 ........................................62

Figure 4-5. Actual and Projected Property Tax Revenues, North Slope Borough, 1987-2009............ 62

Figure 4-6. Revenues and Expenditures, City of Barrow, 1973-2000 ................................................ 66

Figure 4-7. Local Revenues, City of Barrow, 1973-2000...................................................................67

Figure 4-8. Non-Local Revenues, City of Barrow, 1973-2000........................................................... 69

Figure 4-9. Expenditures, City of Barrow, 1973-2000.......................................................................71

Figure 4-10. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, 1985-2000...................... 73

Figure 4-11. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, 1985-2000........................ 74

Figure 4-12. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, 1985-2000 ................ 75

Figure 4-13. Annual Local Expenditures by Category, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, 1985-2000................ 76

Figure 4-14. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Atqasuk, 1985-2000 ................................. 78

Figure 4-15. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Atqasuk, 1985-2000 ................................... 79

Figure 4-16. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Atqasuk, 1985-2000............................ 80

Figure 4-17. Annual Expenditures by Category, City of Atqasuk, 1985-2000 .................................... 81

Figure 4-18. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Kaktovik, 1985-2000 ................................83

Figure 4-19. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Kaktovik, 1985-2000................................... 84

Figure 4-20. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Kaktovik, 1985-2000........................... 85

Figure 4-21. Annual Expenditures by Category, City of Kaktovik, 1985-2000 ................................... 86

Figure 4-22. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Nuiqsut, 1985-1998 ................................. 88

Figure 4-23. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Nuiqsut, 1985 to 1999................................ 89

Figure 4-24. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Nuiqsut, 1985 to 1999........................ 90

Figure 4-25. Expenditures by Category, City of Nuiqsut, 1985-1998 ................................................ 91

Figure 4-26. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Point Hope, 1985-2000............................ 93

Figure 4-27. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Point Hope, 1985-2000.............................. 94

Figure 4-28. Annual Non-local Revenues, City of Point Hope, 1985-2000 ....................................... 95

Figure 4-29. Annual Expenditures by Category, City of Point Hope, 1985-2000............................... 96

Figure 4-30. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Wainwright, 1985-2000............................ 98

Figure 4-31. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Wainwright, 1985-2000.............................. 99

Figure 4-32. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Wainwright, 1985-2000.................... 100
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

xii Final 

Figure 4-33. Annual Expenditures by Category, City of Wainwright, 1985-2000 .............................101

Figure 5-1. Organizational Chart for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation..........................................115

Figure 5-2. Contributions of Business Segments to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Revenue ......116

Figure 5-3. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Revenues and Dividends, 1973-2002......................117

Figure 5-4. Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation in the North Slope Borough, 

1992, 1997, and 2002 ............................................................................................................122

Figure 6-1. Total Amount of NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the North Slope 

Borough and North Slope Communities, 1987-2005 ...............................................................140

Figure 6-2. Employment in Federal Agencies, North Slope Borough, 1968-2003 ............................145

Figure 6-3. Federal Spending, North Slope Borough, 1983-2003....................................................147

Figure 6-4. Federal Spending on Grants and Procurement Contracts, North Slope Borough, 

1983-2003 ..............................................................................................................................147

Figure 6-5. Federal Expenditures in Remote Rural Census Areas including the North Slope 

Borough, 2002 ........................................................................................................................148

Figure 6-6. Land ownership on the North Slope .............................................................................150

Figure 6-7. State Employment, North Slope Borough, 1980-2003 ..................................................151

Figure 6-8. State of Alaska Administered Grants and Revenue Sharing Funds Received by the 

North Slope Borough and North Slope Communities, FY 1981-2006 .......................................152

Figure 6-9. State of Alaska Administered Funds Received by the North Slope Borough and 

North Slope Communities by Type of Grant, FY 1981-2006.....................................................154

Figure 7-1. Per Capita Personal Income of North Slope Residents, 1969-2000 ...............................182

Figure 7-2. Total Personal Income of North Slope Residents, 1969-2000........................................183

Figure 7-3. Net Earnings, Transfer Payments, and Dividends, Interest, and Rent of North 

Slope Residents, 1969-2000 ....................................................................................................183

Figure 7-4. North Slope Resident Population, 1939-2000 ..............................................................190

Figure 7-5. Alaska Native and Non-Native Resident Population of the North Slope, 1970-2000 .....191

Figure 7-6. Age Distribution of the Alaska Native and Non-Native Resident Population of the 

North Slope, 1998...................................................................................................................192
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

 Final xiii

Abbreviations 

ACCI ASRC Contracting Company, Inc. 

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

AEF Arctic Education Foundation 

AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

AHFC Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 

AIDEA Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 

DOLWD Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Corporation 

ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

APC Alaska Petroleum Contractors 

ASCG Arctic Slope Consulting Group 

ASRC Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

ASWS Arctic Slope World Services 

BEA U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BIDCO Business and Industrial Development Corporation 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BMC Bowhead Manufacturing Company, LLC 

CFFR Consolidated Federal Funds Report 

CGP Comprehensive Grant Program 

CIP NSB Capital Improvement Program 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CPI Consumer Price Index 

DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 

DEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

DEW Distant Early Warning 

DHSS U.S. Department of Health and Social Services 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DOLWD Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

xiv Final 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DOT & PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

DWM NSB Department of Wildlife Management 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EED Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

FAA Federal Aviation Authority 

FIRE Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

FY Fiscal Year 

GAO U.S. General Accounting Office 

HUBZone Historically Underutilized Business Zone 

HUD U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IHLC Iñupiat History Language and Culture Commission 

IRA Indian Reorganization Act 

ISER Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage 

JV Joint Venture 

KIC Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation 

LLC Limited Liability Corporation 

MGL Municipal Grants and Loans 

MMS U.S. Minerals Management Service 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOL Net Operating Loss 

NPR-A National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska 

NSB North Slope Borough 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

PMC Piquniq Management Corporation 

SBA U.S. Small Business Administration 

SBCs Small Business Concerns 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline System 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

 Final xv

TCU Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 

TNHA Tagiugmiullu Nunamiuulu Housing Authority 

TOW Top of the World Hotel 

TT Tundra Tours 

UIC Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation 

UICC UIC Construction LLC 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VSW Village Safe Water 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

xvi Final 
 Final ES-1 

Executive Summary 

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) commissioned this study to provide a basis for 

socioeconomic analyses required by the Outer Continental Shelf lands Act and the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Information from this study establishes a baseline for the required 

analyses for environmental impact statements (EIS’s), environmental assessments (EA’s), and other 

NEPA documentation. These analyses are for lease sales, development and production plans, and 

related OCS activity in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Hope Basin planning areas. In general, this 

study is intended to provide a historical region-wide perspective of the changes in the economy of the 

North Slope from 1965 to 2005. 

While change has been a constant for the inhabitants of the North Slope, several major events 

occurring during the last few decades contributed to key structural changes that created the North 

Slope economy as it exists today; these events include Alaska statehood in 1959, the discovery of oil 

in Prudhoe Bay in 1968, the enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, 

the establishment of the North Slope Borough (NSB) in 1972, passage of the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act in 1980, and opening of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska for oil and 

gas development. This study explores the structural changes that have had significant economic, 

institutional, and social impacts on the region. The following sections describe some of the major 

highlights of the report. 

Changes in Employment and Economic Activities 

Prior to 1968, employment opportunities on the North Slope were primarily limited to federal and 

state activities, and North Slope villages could only afford limited local government. The discovery of 

oil in Prudhoe Bay in 1968, formation of the regional and village Alaska Native corporations after 

passage of the ANCSA in 1971, and formation of the NSB in 1972 dramatically changed the physical 

and economic infrastructure of the region. These events created a more diverse economy with 

increased activities in construction, oil and gas extraction, and support sectors such as transportation, 

communications, and utilities, and other service sectors. While employment and total earnings in the 

region increased significantly, the wealth created (from net earnings) did not necessarily create 

significant effects in the regional economy, as most of these dollars were earned by non-residents and 

were not re-spent in the regional economy. The local government sector is the region’s major 

employer of North Slope residents. 

The Role of Local Government 

Through its ability to levy taxes on oil and gas properties within the Borough, the NSB government has 

provided employment and services to all North Slope communities and has been the largest employer 

of North Slope Iñupiat. The NSB has financed major infrastructure projects primarily with property tax 

revenues. The NSB has also leveraged federal and state funds to provide for public services to all 

North Slope communities. As oil and gas production and pipeline property depreciates, tax revenues 

to the Borough also decline. The declining revenues are causing significant budgetary challenges, 

leading to reductions in the scale of capital projects and increased efforts in efficiently managing 

operating income. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

ES-2 Final 

The Role of For-Profit Alaska Native Corporations 

The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ARSC) and eight village corporations that were formed under 

ANCSA have been a significant economic force in the region, providing jobs to residents and 

opportunities to be involved in all sectors of the economy (i.e. construction, oilfield activities, retail 

and service sector, etc.). Since 1973, ASRC has increased its revenues at an average rate of 39 percent 

per year. In 2003, the corporation’s gross revenues amounted to about $1 billion. Both ASRC and the 

village corporations have served as vehicles to channel Native assets and capital toward productive 

investments on behalf of their shareholders. While they are required by law to make good faith efforts 

at earning financial returns for their shareholders, they also put emphasis on hiring their shareholders, 

providing for educational needs of their shareholders and children, and remaining involved in political 

and social issues. 

The Role of Federal, State, and Tribal Governments and Non-Profit Organizations 

and Important Economic Linkages in the Region 

Aside from the large, multinational corporations that produce oil on the North Slope, the major 

players in the North Slope economy are the Alaska Native corporations and the various government 

sectors (federal, state, and local governments). Most of these entities own and manage lands in the 

region, provide employment to North Slope residents, and provide resources to carry out 

infrastructure development and community operations. The NSB, given its functions and powers, is at 

the center of the web of linkages among these various entities, funneling federal and state dollars as 

well as property tax revenues to manage its physical/natural resources and provide public services for 

its residents. 

Individual and Household Economic Impacts and Responses 

The substantial expansion of public facilities and services that has occurred in North Slope 

communities over the past 25 years has significantly improved the quality of village life. Significant 

improvements have occurred in water and sanitation facilities, health and social services, education, 

housing, public safety, transportation and communication. While long-standing income inequalities 

between Iñupiat and non-Iñupiat households continue, income increases among Iñupiat households 

appear to be fairly evenly distributed. To some extent, the income increases experienced by North 

Slope households have been offset by the high cost of living. Surveys indicate that subsistence 

resources continue to be of economic and cultural importance to residents, although the adoption of 

modern technology has raised the cost of participating in subsistence activities. While North Slope 

residents generally agree that the overall quality of life in their communities has improved, they 

continue to express concern about the social effects of rapid economic development in the region. 
 Final 1 

1 Introduction 

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) commissioned this study to provide a basis for 

socioeconomic analyses required by the Outer Continental Shelf lands Act and the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Information from this study establishes a baseline for the required 

analyses for environmental impact statements (EIS’s), environmental assessments (EA’s), and other 

NEPA documentation. These analyses are for lease sales, development and production plans, and 

related OCS activity in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Hope Basin planning areas. In general, this 

study is intended to provide a historical region-wide perspective of the changes in the economy of the 

North Slope from 1965 to 2005. 

1.1 Analytical Framework/Approach 

The analytical approach is dictated by the following objectives: 

1) To define and document changes in the North Slope regional economy in terms of: 

a) Structure 

b) Composition 

c) Operation/Function 

d) Linkage of the economic dimensions listed above (from a to c) to key historic institutional 

milestones 

2) To provide a historical account of economic activities in the NSB and present trend lines, charts, 

and diagrams that would depict the changes in the economy of the region through the years. 

3) To characterize the evolution of the NSB economy with respect to six key components: 

a) The structure of the North Slope economy in terms of employment and income within sectors 

or industries, and the demographic composition of labor. 

b) Revenue and expenditure patterns of the NSB and city governments. 

c) The role of ASRC and village for-profit Alaska Native corporations in the economy. 

d) The role of non-profit corporations, tribal governments, and federal and state governments. 

e) Linkages among the various entities described above. 

f) The response to change of household economies and the effects of economic change on 

traditional subsistence practices. 

The following aspects of the “North Slope economy” are included in this report: 

• Permanent residential communities of the North Slope which are now within the boundaries 

of the NSB. 

• The NSB as a government. 

• The NSB property tax, which includes the substantial revenues received from the oil industry 

infrastructure centered at Prudhoe Bay. 

• Linkages among public and private entities, including the North Slope oil industry centered at 

Prudhoe Bay. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

2 Final 

Except for the linkages identified above, the term “North Slope economy” is not meant to include the 

North Slope oil industry and all revenues, expenditures and employment thereof. 

The following sections describe the specific issues investigated and the analytical approach used for 

each of the six major tasks called for in the study. 

Task 1: Structure of the North Slope economy

As an economy moves from a limited cash economy to a more diverse and cash-based economy, 

shifts in its structure or composition occur. In the North Slope, several major events resulted in 

changes in employment sectors and in demographic composition of the labor force. This study 

documents the shifts in employment within sectors or industries and employment by major 

employers. These indicators will show the shifts in the level of economic diversity or shifts in major 

economic drivers in the communities. 

Resident employment data were obtained from the North Slope Borough Department of Planning 

and Community Services and Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD) 

for the major sectors of the North Slope economy, including construction, trade, services, and 

government. Employment data by place of work from DOLWD, which include the employees of the 

multinational oil producers, are also presented to illustrate the difference between the resident and 

non-resident employment on the North Slope. DOLWD data also shows year-to-year changes in 

employment from the late 1960s to present while the U.S. Census and the NSB Censuses are based 

on periodic surveys. Beyond the provision of quantitative trend data, one of the major subtasks for 

this study element was to synthesize and provide a narrative interpretation of employment data and 

its fluctuations through the years1

. Data by sector, type of employment, and by major employer (to 

the extent available) are presented in graphic form where possible to illustrate direction and 

magnitude of trends. Figure 1-1 provides a conceptual framework for examining the structure of the 

North Slope economy. 

 

1

 Historical income data are presented and discussed under Task 6: Individual and Household Economic 

Response to Change; as part of the discussion on quality of life indicators. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

 Final 3 

Figure 1-1. Analytical Framework for the Structure of the North Slope Economy 

Employment 

Structure

Sectoral Composition Labor Force Composition

Sectoral Employment by Place 

of Residence

Sectoral Employment by Place 

of Work

Gender

Ethnicity

Top Employment Sectors

by Community

Employment 

Structure

Sectoral Composition Labor Force Composition

Sectoral Employment by Place 

of Residence

Sectoral Employment by Place 

of Work

Gender

Ethnicity

Top Employment Sectors

by Community

Task 2: The role of local governments

The purpose of this task is to determine the role of local governments (NSB and city governments) in 

shaping the North Slope economy. To that end, the amount and distribution of NSB revenues and 

expenditures from 1965 to the present are examined, including the NSB’s fiscal policy, revenue 

sharing, and its budgeting process. Revenues are classified by major source, such as taxes, service 

charges, enterprise fund revenues, other locally generated revenues, federal assistance, state revenue 

sharing, state municipal assistance, other external revenues, educational funds, and capital project 

revenues. Expenditures are also classified by major budget categories such as administrative/finance, 

council/assembly, planning/zoning, other government, public safety, public works, health care, other 

public services, education, capital projects, and debt retirement. Revenue and expenditure categories 

may differ by political entity and time period (as dictated by the availability of data). The study also 

touches on the interplay between bonding and debt retirement and annual operating general-fund 

expenditures. 

Documenting the pattern of government revenues and expenditures in the North Slope is critical due 

to the significant role played by the Borough and city governments in the regional economy. The 

regional economy and separate local economies are largely driven by government expenditures, with 

the exception of the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex at Deadhorse. The significant role of 

government in the economy is examined using revenue and expenditure patterns, as well as 

quantitative measures of housing and infrastructure investments and other public service 

improvements. The NSB and state government are the dominant entities in the region capable of 

undertaking large capital projects. 

Data were collected from the NSB and city governments within the Borough, and other publicly 

available reports. The data series are as complete as possible for each government entity. In addition, 

each series is explained (documentation of patterns include a discussion of revenues and expenditures 

for each government entity). Figure 1-2 shows the different parameters examined in analyzing the role 

of local governments in shaping the North Slope economy. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

4 Final 

Figure 1-2. Analytical Framework for the Role of Local Government in Shaping the North Slope Economy 

Role of Local Government

North Slope Borough Community/City Government

Primary Revenues

Primary Expenditures

Primary Revenues

Primary Expenditures

Community-level Services Bonding Capacity &Capital 

Demands

Community-level Fiscal Issues

Role of Local Government

North Slope Borough Community/City Government

Primary Revenues

Primary Expenditures

Primary Revenues

Primary Expenditures

Community-level Services Bonding Capacity &Capital 

Demands

Community-level Fiscal Issues

Task 3: The role of for-profit Alaska Native corporations 

The primary objective of Task 3 is to identify, describe, and assess the role and impact of for-profit 

Alaska Native corporations on the North Slope economy. Overlaying the North Slope is one regional 

corporation, ASRC, and eight village corporations that were established after passage of ANCSA (Table 

1-1). The major contributions of the Alaska Native corporations, their subsidiaries, and joint ventures 

to the North Slope economy include local investment, employment, and tax payments. 

Table 1-1. Village Corporations on the North Slope 

Village Village Corporation 

Anaktuvuk Pass Nunamiut Corporation 

Atqasuk Atqasuk Corporation 

Barrow Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation 

Kaktovik Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation 

Nuiqsut Kukpik Corporation 

Point Hope Tikigaq Corporation (formerly Tigara) 

Point Lay Cully Corporation 

Wainwright Olgoonik Corporation 

An important step in this analysis was to clarify economic relationships between the ASRC and its forprofit affiliates within and outside NSB boundaries and with the village corporations enumerated 

above. 

Where possible, information was obtained from the Alaska Native corporations regarding their 

operations, investments and employees for both non-profit and for profit affiliates and their joint 

ventures and subsidiaries. The study presents diagrams, bar charts, trend lines, and other appropriate 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

 Final 5 

illustrations of the changes in employment, income, and tax revenues as related to the contributions 

of Alaska Native corporations to the regional economy. The figure below (Figure 1-3) shows the 

different components of the analysis. 

Figure 1-3. Analytical Framework for the Role of Alaska Native Corporations in Shaping the North Slope 

Economy 

Role of Native 

Corporations

Issues For-Profit Village 

Corporations

ANCSA

AK Native Corporation 

Legal Structure

Village Corporation 

Employment

Corporate Structure

Corporation and Oil 

Industry Linkages

Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation

ASRC Timeline

Corporate Structure

Revenues and 

Dividends

Employment

Community Benefits

Role of Native 

Corporations

Issues For-Profit Village 

Corporations

ANCSA

AK Native Corporation 

Legal Structure

Village Corporation 

Employment

Corporate Structure

Corporation and Oil 

Industry Linkages

Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation

ASRC Timeline

Corporate Structure

Revenues and 

Dividends

Employment

Community Benefits

Task 4: The role of federal and state governments, tribal governments, and non-profit organizartions 

The goal of Task 4 is to describe the role of these various entities in the economies of North Slope 

communities over time. Information on their revenues, expenditures, and the number of jobs 

provided is presented. The federal and state governments have historically played a significant role in 

the North Slope economy by providing employment and basic public services. In recent years, tribal 

governments and various non-profit organizations have also become important players in the 

provision of public sector services on the North Slope. 

Task 5: Economic linkages among various entities

The goal of Task 5 is to provide an overview of the relational ties or linkages among the various 

entities described in previous chapters and describe the importance of these linkages to the North 

Slope economy. The relational ties or linkages that have evolved over the years form a complex web 

or network of federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies and for-profit Alaska Native 

corporations and non-profit organizations that provides services to residents of the North Slope. These 

linkages act as a means through which there can be a transfer and flow of resources—whether 

material (money, equipment) or non-material (information, support, training). They also link up not 

only the organizations, agencies, and actors themselves, but their actions: policies, programs, and 

projects. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

6 Final 

Task 6: Individual and household economic impacts and responses

The goal of Task 6 is to link higher-level economic changes seen on the North Slope over the 1965-

2005 period, as described in Tasks 1 through 5, to economic impacts and responses at the individual 

and household level. Clearly, one of the most important components in reflecting changes in the 

North Slope economy through the years is the change in lifestyle and quality of life of its residents. 

This has been a major focus of NSB activities over the years, with direct and indirect initiatives being 

undertaken to improve the quality of life, including a range of large capital improvement program 

undertakings, from infrastructure and utilities improvements to the upgrading of individual dwelling 

units. Beyond these more or less formal initiatives, as structural economic changes occur, people (as 

individuals and groups, including households) are presented with new opportunities and/or face new 

constraints, and react according to their evaluation of the situation. This component of the study 

describes changes in individual and household economics based on changes in real household 

income and other indicators of quality of life (type of sanitation services, educational attainment, etc). 

Furthermore, the relationship between the cash economy and traditional subsistence practices in the 

non-cash household economy and how this has changed over time is an important focus in this task. 

The fundamental question is “To what extent is the cash income (and the effort to procure it) 

complementary to subsistence participation and outcomes?” Clearly, as mechanized transportation 

has replaced dog sleds and skins boats, income is required for subsistence pursuits. However, factors 

that influence participation in subsistence activities are many and complex. These include interhousehold sharing relationships, the availability of game, wage opportunities, and the annual leave 

policies of employers, as well as short- and long-run considerations, such as the conveyance of 

traditional ecological knowledge. The focus of this sub-task was to summarize in meaningful ways 

empirical data from studies depicting subsistence effort and outcomes and to relate this information to 

other measures of conventional economic indicators, including wage income, labor force 

participation, and demography. Several sources of data were used in this discussion; including those 

summarizing research sponsored by both MMS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, as well 

as research supported by the NSB and the National Science Foundation studies of sustainability in the 

Arctic. 

A second specific sub-task was to investigate socio-economic differences between Iñupiat and nonIñupiat individuals or households using census and other data. Differences between these two groups 

were expected, as the sole reason that many non-Iñupiat are on the North Slope is to take advantage 

of employment opportunities. 

The data for this task were drawn from many of the same sources listed for the previous tasks. 

The framework for analyzing economic impacts and responses at the individual and household level is 

provided in Figure 1-4. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

 Final 7 

Figure 1-4. Analytical Framework for Individual and Household Economic Impacts and Responses 

Quality of Life Indicators

Economic Issues

Poverty Level

Community/Household Services

Housing

Educational Attainment

Household Income

Income Distribution

Demographic Shifts

Cost of Living

Subsistence Activities

Quality of Life Indicators

Economic Issues

Poverty Level

Community/Household Services

Housing

Educational Attainment

Household Income

Income Distribution

Demographic Shifts

Cost of Living

Subsistence Activities

1.2 Data Issues 

The analysis of economic trends on the North Slope was constrained by the availability and 

consistency of data for the period 1965 to the present. Detailed data on some socio-economic 

indicators for the region were limited to those provided by periodic censuses or surveys. Because 

economic and demographic data were not available for every year within the time frame of the study, 

trend lines were projected in years that have missing data when appropriate. 

Changes in the geographic scope and collection methods used by the U.S. Census Bureau for the 

decennial censuses and the employment and earnings data by DOLWD created difficulties and 

challenges in providing comparable year-to-year data. The NSB was incorporated in 1972. Prior to 

the formation of the Borough, the U.S. Census data for 1960 and 1970 covered a smaller geographic 

region (known as the Barrow Census Division) that included the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, 

Barrow, and Wainwright. By 1980, the Census data covered all the eight communities in the NSB 

geographic region: Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point Lay, and 

Wainwright. Similarly, DOLWD provides two data series that encompass differences in geographic 

scope similar to those that occur in the U.S. Census data. The employment figures in the first data 

series (1965 to 1979) are for the Barrow-North Slope Division, while the figures in the second data 

series (1980 to present) are for the NSB region. 

The socio-economic data collected for the North Slope were primarily obtained through surveys. In 

general, surveys are sensitive to factors such as the time of the year in which the survey is 

administered (often referred to as the reference week), the types of questions asked, and the manner 

in which they are asked. Changes in the surveys conducted on the North Slope since the 1960s affect 

the comparability of time series data. For example, the recording of employment status by the U.S. 

Census Bureau has changed over time; the 1960 employment status data were presented for people 

14 years old and over, while employment status for the 1970 tabulations included people 16 years 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

8 Final 

old and over. This change was made in 1970 to conform to the official measurement of the labor 

force as revised in 1967 by the U.S. Department of Labor. 

The NSB economic profile and census report series contain information that is directly applicable to 

some of the above tasks, particularly the description of economic impacts and responses at the 

individual and household level. Unfortunately, the data provided in these economic profile and 

census reports do not evenly cover the time span covered by this study. Consequently, the study relies 

primarily on U.S. Census data, which cover the entire study period and provide a more even basis for 

illustrating change. 

Finally, employment and income data of the for-profit and non-profit village corporations were not 

easily accessible due to confidentiality and non-disclosure clauses. The data for the village 

corporations presented in this report are spotty, but represent the level of detail that is available from 

public documents (i.e. annual reports, the state’s employment database, and other existing 

documents). 

Additional discussions of specific data issues are provided in the separate chapters. 
Final 9 

2 Historical Economic and Political Context 

The focus of this study is on changes in the North Slope economy between 1965 and 2005. However, 

a full understanding of the nature of these changes requires some knowledge of the events that 

shaped the North Slope economy before statehood and the period of oil wealth. Moreover, the 

political transformation that occurred on the North Slope during the years immediately prior to and 

after the major Prudhoe Bay oil discovery were instrumental in directing change in the regional 

economy. To provide this broad economic perspective and political context, a brief narrative 

description of the North Slope economy before 1965 is presented below, together with an overview 

of the key political events of the 1960s and 1970s. 

2.1 Commercialization and Acculturation 

An underlying theme in this chapter is the adaptation of the Iñupiat people to multiple change agents. 

Prior to extended contact with Europeans in the late 19th century, North Slope Iñupiat households 

were composed of extended families living in multi-chambered dwellings with whalebone and 

driftwood frames covered by turf. When families grew too large for a single dwelling, others would be 

built nearby, resulting in kin-group clusters that grew into semi-permanent villages situated near prime 

hunting grounds, often along the seacoast. These villages constituted a society well-adapted to the 

extremes of the arctic environment: hunters cooperated in pursuing seasonally-available sea mammals 

and other game while women dressed game, gathered greens, berries, and other foods. Iñupiat 

hunting methods and technology adapted to changing environmental conditions and the behavior of 

the game they pursued (Nelson, 1982; Lowenstein, 1986). Iñupiat culture also fostered this 

adaptation by emphasizing values and beliefs about cooperation and the sharing of resources that 

further contributed to household and group survival. The social institutions of the North Slope Iñupiat 

were consistent with these values and supported the capacity to adapt to a harsh and changing 

environment. 

The adaptive capacity of Iñupiat culture is an important characteristic that influences any assessment 

of change in the North Slope economy, regardless of the agents of change. Indeed, post-contact 

Iñupiat society and culture shows an ongoing capacity to blend new beliefs, values, foods, and 

technology with traditional Iñupiat lifestyles (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, 1978). The 

introduction of stores, churches, hospitals, schools, government agencies, and facilities added to the 

centralization and westernization of the Native population. However, each technological and 

institutional change brought about a new adaptation between traditional and modern ways of life. 

Intermittent periods of intense economic development (e.g., commercial whaling (1860-1910), 

trapping (1917-1930), military construction (1946-1953), oil and gas production (1977-present) 

allowed time for accommodation to socioeconomic change and cultural adaptation. At the same 

time, however, the “boom and bust” nature of some of these economic activities underscored the 

vulnerability of village economies to the vagaries of external economic forces. 

The following sections describe the commercialization and acculturation of the North Slope across 

various time periods. 

2.1.1 Arrival of Euro-Americans and the Period of Commercial Whaling 

Long before contact with Western European culture, subsistence whaling and migratory hunting of 

other animals were the primary means of sustenance among the North Slope Iñupiat. Iñupiat who are 

knowledgeable in their oral history say the bowhead hunt reaches back many thousands of years, 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

10 Final

deep into time immemorial (Hess, 1999). By the early 19th century the indigenous people of the 

Bering Sea region were regularly obtaining tobacco, metal vessels, firearms, knives and other goods 

from European traders in exchange for furs and ivory (Bockstoce 1986). These trade goods were 

carried far from the Bering Sea via well-integrated Native trade networks. Consequently, the North 

Slope Iñupiat had access to Western goods long before direct contact with Europeans. Direct 

commerce between the indigenous people of the North Slope and outsiders commenced in the mid1800s, when foreign whaling vessels, predominately American, began sailing through the Bering Sea 

to the Arctic Ocean in pursuit of the bowhead whale (Bockstoce 1986). The Iñupiat provided the 

whaling crews baleen, ivory and furs in exchange for foreign trade goods. At the same time, the 

indigenous people of the region also began acquiring trade goods directly by working aboard the 

whaling ships, first as interpreters and guides and later as ordinary seamen and occasionally as 

boatsteerers (harpooners) (Bockstoce, 1986). As some ships began wintering over for earlier access to 

the migrating whales, whole families were signed aboard as “ships Natives,” the women to serve as 

seamstresses, the men as hunters and dog drivers in the winter and as seamen in the summer 

(Bockstoce, 1986). 

Contact with Euro-Americans intensified during the 1880s when commercial whaling stations were 

established at various points along the Arctic coast in order to conduct whaling from shore (VanStone, 

1958). By hunting whales in the spring, long before the whaling ships could make their way into the 

area, the catch and amount of baleen shipped south later in the year could be considerably increased 

(Allen, 1978). By 1897-98, 13 such stations were strung out at intervals along the coast between Point 

Hope and Cape Seppings. These stations hired many indigenous residents to help crew the boats 

during the whaling season. In 1890, 400 Iñupiat were engaged in shore whaling at Point Barrow 

alone, using 70 umiat (skin boats; s. umiak) and ten wooden whaleboats (Freeman et al., 1998). A 

mutually beneficial arrangement soon evolved whereby the indigenous whalers hunted bowheads, 

exchanged the baleen at the stations for money or trade goods and kept the carcasses for food 

(Braund and Moorehead, 1995). With the pressing need of the shore-whaling stations for labor, most 

of the people from the Bering Sea to the Canadian border became involved in the whaling industry 

(Bockstoce, 1986). 

Steadily, the coastal communities of the North Slope Iñupiat adopted the whaling gear of the Yankee 

whalers. Given the critical importance of subsistence whaling to the coastal villages there was some 

reluctance to deviate from the traditional practices of their ancestors (Bockstoce, 1986; Rainey, 

1947). By 1880, however, a foreign observer reported that nearly every umiak that he saw equipped 

for whaling was fitted out with iron lances, darting guns and manila lines (VanStone, 1958). In 

addition, many Iñupiat boat captains replaced their umiat with sail-powered wooden whaleboats 

provided by the land stations or acquired from the whaling ships in exchange for baleen, ivory or furs 

(Allen, 1978; Braund, 1988).2

 With the adoption of this new and more effective technology, 

participation by the indigenous people in commercial whaling became very lucrative, and Rainey 

(1947:281) notes that, “many Eskimo made a small fortune out of the sale of baleen.” Some 

accumulated sufficient capital to organize their own commercial whaling crews,3

 and by the early 20th

century many had purchased schooners for whaling and trading (Bockstoce, 1986). During this period 

the indigenous people of the region became integrated into the market economy in other ways as 

 

2

 Whaleboats were also often used to remunerate “ship’s Natives” at the end of their contracts, as they became 

highly prized for their seaworthiness, speed and maneuverability under sail (Bockstoce, 1986; Braund, 1988). 

The Iñupiat seemed to have preferred wooden whaleboats for open-water whaling under sail but continued to 

use lighter umiat for spring hunting in the leads (Bockstoce 1986). 

3

 In 1908, for example, the explorer-anthropologist Stefansson found several Iñupiat at Point Barrow maintaining 

as many as six boat crews and paying equal wages with Euro-Americans (Chance, 1990). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 11 

well. For example, the residents of Wainwright found employment in nearby mines that provided coal 

to the whaling ships (steam powered since the 1880s) (Jorgensen, 1990). 

Contact with Euro-Americans brought more than economic change to North Slope communities. Precontact religiosity and ceremonialism changed in the late 19th century, partly as a result of contact 

with white traders and whaling crews, and in part as a result of the arrival of Christian missionaries 

(Lowenstein, 1986). Shown by the Yankee whalers that bowhead could efficiently be taken without 

elaborate traditional ceremonies, and rather quickly convinced by early missionaries of the Christian 

message, traditional belief systems about whaling were transformed in a matter of decades.4

 The close 

interpersonal alliances within whaling crews remained, but the former religious and ceremonial 

underpinnings of these alliances disappeared (Spencer, 1959). In many North Slope communities, 

Christian prayers soon replaced the traditional rituals associated with the whale hunt (Chance, 1990). 

Rapid and dramatic social change also resulted from a severe demographic shock caused mainly by 

the introduction of foreign diseases and famine. Throughout the latter half of the 19th century the 

Native population of northwest Alaska and the Arctic coastal plain was in general decline. Small 

settlements disappeared and larger ones lost many of their members (Burch, 1975). In some Arctic 

coastal villages that were severely depopulated following contact with Euro-Americans, the previous 

residents were replaced by inland Iñupiat (referred to as Nunamiut) who came to the coastal 

settlements and maintained the whaling focus, joining and sustaining decimated whaling crews 

(Sheehan, 1995).5

 

As a result of these demographic changes, the previously coherent network of kinship ties throughout 

the region was disrupted, and some clans and descent lines were erased (Burch, 1975). The 

population decline, together with the participation in commercial whaling and trading, also appears to 

have allowed already influential individuals in some communities to accumulate even more wealth, 

power and prestige and led to a greater socioeconomic differentiation within villages (Bockstoce, 

1986).6 After the U.S. Bureau of Education began introducing domesticated reindeer into the region 

in 1892 out of concern over the dwindling food resources7

, the rapid growth of large reindeer herds 

intensified socioeconomic differences in Iñupiat society (Worl and Smythe 1986). According to Rainey 

(1941), in a short time most of the reindeer were owned by few wealthy individuals who hired 

members of their extended family to herd them.8

 

4

 Chance (1990) suggests that the educational, medical, and economic services offered by missionaries helped 

considerably in converting the Iñupiat to Christianity. Nevertheless, it took a number of decades for shamanism 

to die out. The last of the shamans at Barrow was still practicing in 1935 (Spencer, 1959). 

5

 The movement of many inland peoples to the coast during the end of the 19th century was also prompted by a 

severe cyclical decline in the caribou herds (Bockstoce, 1986). In 1938, several Nunamiut families left the coast 

and returned to the mountains at Killik River and Chandler Lake. In 1949, the Chandler Lake group moved to 

Anaktuvuk Pass (“the place of caribou droppings”), where they were later joined by the Killik River group. Over 

time, the settlement attracted Nunamiut from many other locations. 

6

 In this period of time, for example, a number of individuals, such as Attungoruk of Point Hope, acquired enough 

economic and political power to almost completely dominate their communities (Bockstoce, 1986). 

7

 Reindeer husbandry became a vocational part of the school system in participating villages (Lopp, 2001). 

Although the reindeer herds were primarily a subsistence resource, some reindeer herders also sold the skins 

and meat to traders (Bodfish 1991). However, it was difficult to develop a market for reindeer products outside 

of Alaska due to competition from the beef industry (Schneider 1991). 

8

 Rainey (1941) stated that in 1926 the Bureau of Education introduced a system of community or company 

ownership in an apparent attempt to distribute the reindeer among a greater number of people. According to 

Rainey, the elimination of the possibility of increasing one’s wealth through individual enterprise contributed to 

the disappearance of most of the reindeer herds by the 1940s. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

12 Final

Social change was also caused by the adoption of Euro-American technology in other subsistence 

activities besides whaling. Although the Iñupiat continued to hunt land animals for food, modern 

firearms soon replaced their traditional hunting weapons. By the early 1880s, for instance, the 

residents of Point Barrow had acquired the most up-to-date repeating rifles (Bockstoce, 1986). The 

use of the rifle made hunting seals, walruses and caribou easier and reduced the need for sharing and 

cooperation within kin groups (Chance, 1990). The disappearance of feuds and warfare during the 

19th century also diminished the necessity of maintaining large cooperative kinship groups, and by the 

early 1900s, smaller family households had assumed a more important social and economic role 

(Rainey, 1941). 

In short, during the sixty or so years that commercial whaling was pursued in the western Arctic, the 

traditional society of the indigenous people of the North Slope underwent some far-reaching and 

permanent transformations. In the 1980s, a village elder remarked that the problems experienced by 

contemporary Iñupiat were “only approaching” the turmoil of that earlier era (R. Brower, Sr. quoted 

in Bodenhorn, 1989:32). Notwithstanding this social upheaval, the Iñupiat, in contrast to other 

indigenous Americans of the 1800s such as the Plains Indians, were able to retain access to their 

traditional resource base (although the bowhead population had been severely depleted by the end 

of the century). Moreover, the participation of the Iñupiat in the whaling industry may actually have 

helped preserve traditional leadership roles, economic ties among extended family members and 

sharing practices within the broader community at a time when other outside forces threatened to 

sweep away the foundations of their culture (cf. Stevenson, 1997). Through a complex process of 

assimilation (of Western technology, wage employment, capitalist ventures, etc.), North Slope 

communities used commercial whaling as a vehicle to adapt to Western culture, much as other 

groups of Alaska Natives used commercial fishing (National Park Service, 1998). 

2.1.2 Post-Commercial Whaling Period 

Between 1908 and 1914, the commercial whaling industry in the western Arctic gradually ended. The 

drastic depletion of the bowheads by commercial whaling operations and the invention of baleen 

substitutes such as spring steel and celluloid both contributed to its demise (Allen, 1978). Some 

Alaskan trading companies continued to deal in small amounts of baleen into the 1920s (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1977),9

 but the Arctic whaling industry’s virtual collapse ushered in the 

return to whaling as primarily a subsistence activity (Bockstoce et al., 1982). 

At the conclusion of World War I, however, the worldwide fur trade accelerated sharply and the 

Iñupiat quickly turned to this activity in order to supply their commodity needs (Bockstoce, 1986; 

National Science Foundation, 2000). For some individuals, income from trapping exceeded what had 

been possible from commercial whaling. An annual income of $3,000 to $4,000 (about $30,000 to 

$40,000 in current dollars) was not unusual (Chance, 1990). By the 1920s, Iñupiat were using the 

large sums that could be garnered from running trap lines to capitalize their subsistence pursuits 

(Jorgensen, 1990). Outboard motor-powered boats, shotguns, rifles and binoculars were purchased to 

harvest and transport sea mammals, and portable camping goods, from thermos bottles to stoves, 

soon came to be used. Data on the subsistence bowhead catch shows a substantial increase for the 

period 1920-1929 (Table 2-1). However, unlike commercial whaling, trapping required that some 

subsistence activities be less actively pursued, mainly early and mid-winter sealing and late winterearly spring caribou hunting (Chance, 1990). Furthermore, trapping cut deeply into the winter period 

 

9

 In addition, after the demise of the Arctic whaling industry baleen and other whale parts were made into arts 

and crafts products by the Iñupiat and sold (Lee, 1983; Worl, 1980). This practice has continued to the present 

day. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 13 

previously devoted to community activities and affected long-standing patterns of family and village 

cohesion (Chance, 1990). 

Table 2-1. Bowhead Whales Landed per Year by Decade during the 

Post-Commercial Subsistence Whaling Era

Decade 

Number of Villages 

with Reported 

Takes1

Average Number of 

Whales Landed per 

Year Total Landings 

Approximate 

Annual Number of 

Whaling Crews 

1915-1919 8 10 50 49 

1920-1929 8 16 157 47 

1930-1939 9 12 122 52 

1940-1949 9 12 120 36 

1950-1959 7 10 101 41 

1960-1969 8 14 144 62 

1970-1979 10 27 266 85 

1980-1989 9 16 158 95 

1990-2000 10 51 506 >100

1 According to the International Whaling Commission (1982), from 1920 to 1970, crews were based continuously 

in five communities (Barrow, Wainwright, Point Hope, Wales and Gambell) and for less than the full-time span 

at four others (Savoonga, Point Lay, Kivalina and Kaktovik). Nuiqsut was resettled in 1973 and landed a whale 

that same year (Okakok, 1973). 

Sources: Braham, 1995; International Whaling Commission, 2004. 

The collapse of the market for furs caused by the stock market crash of 1928 and repeal of the 

embargo on Russian furs following the recognition by the United States of the Soviet Union in 1933 

caused another economic downturn in North Slope communities (Bockstoce, 1986). As this source of 

income disappeared, a more self-sufficient subsistence mode of life and earlier patterns of 

cooperation and interdependence reemerged (Chance, 1990; Spencer, 1959). Contact with the 

outside world continued in the form of visits from federal officials (most notably Bureau of Indian 

Affair employees) and longer stays of school teachers and missionaries (Lee, 1998). 

But not until the onset of World War II did North Slope villages experience economic relief, this time 

mainly in the form of public sector jobs. Military bases were established along the Arctic coast, and 

many Iñupiat served in the Alaska Territorial Guard or were absorbed into the regular ranks of the 

U.S. Army (Chance, 1990; Klausner and Foulks, 1982). World War II-era military exploration of 

petroleum reserves and post-war government defense projects such as the Distant Early Warning sites 

(DEW Line) led to a further increase in employment opportunities (Chance, 1990). The exploration 

on Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (now the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska) prompted the 

establishment of the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory near Barrow in 1947, which added 

employment. To take advantage of these job opportunities, some Iñupiat relocated to be near 

employment sites, such as Barrow and Kaktovik. Iñupiat found jobs as tractor drivers, carpenters, 

mechanics, machine operators, boat skippers, office support, and laborers and received standard 

wages. Although these jobs were taken primarily by men, women started to enter the labor force as 

new jobs opened in education, health and other government services (Kruse 1984). In addition to 

wage employment, government assistance programs, such as Old Age Pensions, Aid to Dependent 

Children, and General Relief, were made available to qualifying Iñupiaq households. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

14 Final

The boost in village purchasing power during this period led to almost complete “Americanization” of 

household and personal material goods, together with those items involving the subsistence economy 

(VanStone, 1960). Worl and Smythe (1986:38) note that the people they spoke with generally agreed 

that life became easier with the availability of wage income. For example, one woman recalled that 

the first item her husband purchased was a washing machine. On the other hand, there were not 

always enough cash jobs, especially in some of the smaller North Slope villages, nor did the 

government construction season last long enough for money to support extended family groups 

throughout the year. Moreover, construction projects occurred cyclically, leaving depressed troughs 

and high unemployment in their wake, which were only alleviated by the next construction project 

(Hippler, 1969). 

In conclusion, the economy of the North Slope during the early to mid-20th century remained highly 

susceptible to boom-and-bust disruptions. Trapping had an even more precipitous trajectory than 

commercial whaling (National Research Council, 2003). After a brief period of economic prosperity, 

North Slope residents were forced to revert to more subsistence-based livelihoods due to a downturn 

in the U.S. market for furs. The wage jobs introduced from the mid-1940s through the 1960s brought 

economic relief for some households, but the boom-bust conditions persisted as a result of the 

cyclical nature of government construction projects. As a result of the intermittent nature of wageearning jobs on the North Slope during this period, subsistence activities continued to supply the 

majority of food for most families (National Research Council, 2003). 

Apart from the economic necessity of relying on subsistence activities between periods of high 

economic opportunity, there was a widespread feeling among the Iñupiat that sources of cash income 

would continue to be undependable and that survival and cultural integrity would depend on 

continuing subsistence practices. At the same time, however, the increasing reliance on Western 

technology tightly tied the subsistence economies of North Slope villages to wage work and cash 

transfers of various kinds (Jorgensen, 1990). As Hippler (1969:23) noted, “Since hunting takes at least 

some money ([e.g., to buy] snow machines, maintain and fuel them), it is almost necessary to 

combine these two activities. The very poor have a hard time hunting effectively.” 

2.2 Political Transformation of the Region 

Despite some improvements in economic conditions during the post-war years, the overall quality of 

life in North Slope villages through the 1960s continued to be poor in comparison with that in most 

communities in the United States: 

Schools were poorly equipped and did not offer classes beyond the elementary grades. 

School policy was set by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. ... Students were punished for 

speaking their own language, and their Native culture was made to seem inferior to that of an 

invading world; something that must be put aside and forgotten. 

Students who desired a high school education had to travel to boarding schools hundreds, 

even thousands of miles from home. The traditional part of their education was severely 

neglected. At boarding school, they had no opportunity to follow their fathers and 

grandfathers on the whale hunt, or to help cut up and prepare maktak and mikigaq. ... 

The young people lived in homes constructed largely of driftwood and scrap lumber left by 

the military, and from the timbers of old shipwrecks. Fires broke out frequently in these 

structures. Most often, the equipment was not available to fight the fires, and the homes 

burned to the ground. On a per capita basis, more people were killed in accidental fires on 

the North Slope than anywhere else in the world. Modern medical care was often days away, 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 15 

if it could be had at all. Water had to be scooped or chopped from freshwater lakes. There 

was no good, sanitary disposal system for honey buckets.[10] Roads did not exist in the villages. 

There were no cars and trucks. A village was lucky to have even one phone, and, if it did, the 

voices on that phone would come across scratchy and broken. 

Village airstrips were too short to serve anything but bush planes. Pilots had no navigational 

aids to guide them into these strips when the weather was poor, which was often. 

Other than periodic work at the military outposts, such as the Dewline stations and the Naval 

Arctic Research Laboratory, there were few jobs to be had. ... 

The Federal Field Committee Report, funded by the United States government in the late 

1960s, revealed that, along with other rural regions of Alaska, the economy of the North 

Slope was the poorest in the nation (Hess, 1993).

Through the 1960s, none of the villages, with the exception of Barrow,11 had a central plant capable 

of generating electricity for the entire community (NSB Department of Planning and Community 

Services, 1989). Although Barrow’s Iñupiat population was located near the nation’s largest military 

petroleum reserve, it was not until 1963 that it acquired access to this source of heating fuel (Dupere 

and Associates, Inc., 1973). Law enforcement services were minimal, and there were no public 

libraries, community centers, or recreational facilities. 

It was during this period of gradual development that a number of events transpired that would 

dramatically alter the economic situation of North Slope residents. In particular, the post-war years 

saw the emergence of the settlement of Native land claims as a prime social, political and economic 

issue among North Slope communities (Chance, undated). Initial activity on land claims resulted from 

the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, which permitted the federal government to be sued by 

“Indian tribes” on certain kinds of claims not previously allowed. The doctrine of aboriginal dominion 

was the basis on which most of these claims were contested. Through 1951, there was renewed 

interest in village petitions for reservation lands authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1936. 

The North Slope villages of Point Hope, Point Lay and Wainwright filed petitions for reservation lands 

with no results. Alaskans generally opposed reservations, and there was a national movement towards 

Native acculturation and assimilation. However, the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 brought the issue 

of Native land claims into sharper focus. The Statehood Act gave Alaska the right to select more than 

100 million acres of land as its own to develop. Some of the development projects proposed for 

Alaska threatened to disrupt the relationship of the North Slope Iñupiat to their land and traditional 

way of life.12 Native groups all over the state filed protests. Among the most important of these 

protests was the claim of the Arctic Slope Native Association on 58 million acres—virtually all the land 

 

10 Toilets typically consisted of 5-gallon buckets fitted with toilet seats (Dupere and Associates, Inc., 1973). 

These “honey buckets” were emptied into 55-gallon drums stored outside each house. When the drums became 

full, it was the responsibility of each tenant to dispose of the waste. Water wastes associated with cooking, 

washing and cleaning were generally disposed of on the ground outside each house. These waste disposal 

practices in North Slope villages undoubtedly contributed to the regular epidemic outbreaks of infectious 

diseases (Dupere and Associates, Inc., 1973). 

11 In 1946, generators were introduced to Barrow to supply electricity (Worl and Smythe, 1986). 

12 In 1962, for example, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission considered a proposal to set off a nuclear 

explosion at Cape Thompson to create a harbor for shipping minerals and other goods from northwest Alaska. 

This proposal was shelved, but in 1966, the State announced the opening of large blocks of land on the North 

Slope to oil and gas leasing. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

16 Final

north of the Brooks Range—based on aboriginal use and occupancy (Chance, undated).13 Native 

leaders pressed for a freeze on all land conveyances to the state from the federal government until 

Native claims had been resolved, a freeze that U.S. Interior Secretary Stewart Udall granted in 1966. 

The major Prudhoe Bay oil discovery late in 1967 brought force and economic urgency to the need to 

reach an agreement on how much land and money Alaska Natives should receive in settlement of 

land claims. A number of large oil companies joined the ranks of those trying to gain access to land 

tied up in those claims. The unresolved claims covered land that the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline 

would cross, and the claims, as well as court suits brought by environmental organizations opposed to 

pipeline construction, were delaying the start of the project. Finally, state and federal leaders found a 

settlement acceptable to Native leaders, and Congress passed ANCSA in 1971. 

ANCSA settled Alaska Native land claims with a grant of 44 million acres and payment of nearly one 

billion dollars. Congress had decided that it would not be existing Native institutions such as tribal 

governments that would receive and manage the settlement. Instead, ANCSA created village and 

regional corporations to manage the lands and capital on behalf of the Alaska Natives.14 Land and 

money were channeled to North Slope villages through ASRC, a for-profit regional corporation 

formed under ANCSA. Under the terms of ANCSA, ASRC was designated to receive about 4.6 million 

acres and $22.5 million from which each of the region’s eight village corporations was to receive a 

portion. ASRC enrolled approximately 3,700 Iñupiat shareholders in 1971. Anyone born as of the 

date of the enactment of ANCSA who was at least one-quarter Alaska Native was eligible. 

Amendments to ANCSA in the late 1980s gave corporations the option to add those born later. 

Currently, ASRC automatically enrolls shareholders’ children when they are born.15

The North Slope Iñupiat also took advantage of state legislation that made it possible to form regional 

governments (boroughs) with a taxing authority on property (Jorgensen, 1990). Through the persistent 

efforts of Eben Hopson, Joseph Upicksoun, Charlie Edwardsen, Jr. and other community leaders, the 

NSB was incorporated as a first-class borough in 1972 (it became a home-rule borough in 1974);16

and through its taxing authority received large revenues from Prudhoe Bay oil production (Hess, 

1993).17 

 

13 The Arctic Slope Native Association came into being in 1966, at a meeting organized by Charles Edwardsen, 

Jr, an Iñupiat resident of Barrow (Hess, 1993). Board members of the Association were elected from the North 

Slope villages. 

14 The delegates of the Arctic Slope Native Association were suspicious of Congress’ scheme to use profitmaking corporations as the means for receiving settlement monies and lands, and they put forward an alternative 

proposal urging that the land be owned “tribally” (i.e., collectively) through the medium of regional Indian 

Reorganization Act (IRA) Councils (Chance undated). Moreover, the Association opposed ANCSA because it 

objected to Congress’ decision to use size of population as the key criteria for the allocation of land and money 

rather than size and value of the land.

15 Adding the next generation of Iñupiat to the rolls has increased ASRC’s shareholder list to about 8,000. The 

newly issued stock reverts to the Corporation when the shareholder dies. 

16 Adoption of a home rule charter promotes maximum local self-government under the Constitution of the State 

of Alaska. The home rule charter of the NSB describes the powers of the borough, including procedures for 

establishing the school board, levying taxes, issuing bonds, planning and zoning, and for carrying out all the 

other functions of a home rule borough government. 

17 Kruse (1984) notes that the State of Alaska, viewing Prudhoe Bay oil as a statewide tax resource, opposed 

formation of the North Slope Borough. In addition, the oil companies, who wanted to limit and stabilize their tax 

liability, fought the formation of the borough in the courts. When the NSB was created in 1972, normal 

commercial sources for local government financing were unavailable to the borough because of the oil company 

litigation. To raise funds for operations the NSB adopted a resolution authorizing the sale of $500,000 worth of 

“revenue anticipation bonds.” Among the major purchasers of these bonds was the United Presbyterian Church 

(The Presbytery of the Yukon, 2005). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 17 

The North Slope Iñupiat demonstrated a remarkable ability to develop and adapt the NSB and Alaska 

Native corporations organized under ANCSA, and to utilize them to promote their political and 

economic welfare (Worl and Smythe, 1986). The meaning and importance of these institutions were 

incorporated into and expressed through the existing “traditional” Iñupiaq cultural rhetoric and 

ideology as part of this adaptation. Iñupiaq values were still paramount even within a political and 

economic structure imposed by an outside authority. Referring to the traditional whaling culture of 

the Iñupiat, one community leader called ANCSA and the Alaska Native corporations the “new 

harpoon” and described the economic self-determination they afforded the Iñupiat: 

[ANCSA] contains a tool that can be implemented to fulfill the socioeconomic needs of the 

Alaska Native people. So with the Native claims bill it was not really the size of the land grant 

or the amount of the cash settlement that was important. It was the concept, the mechanism 

that was created. ...Now the Eskimo has a new harpoon. He has the tool in the Alaska Land 

Claims Settlement Act—a regional corporation—to manage his own internal affairs, with 

dignity, as an owner. 

The NSB was viewed as the vehicle to unify Barrow with the other North Slope villages, to maintain 

their political autonomy, and to protect their land ownership and utilization, while allowing the 

Iñupiat to benefit from petroleum development on the North Slope (Worl and Smythe 1986). The 

Borough was politically controlled by the Iñupiat, who elected a mayor and assembly members. 

Although this arena became subject to substantial competition among Iñupiat families and factions, 

the creation and control of the NSB allowed the Iñupiat to use tax revenues derived from Prudhoe 

Bay oil-field facilities in ways that were congruent with Iñupiat values (Worl and Smythe, 1986). As 

Worl and McMillan (1981:32-3) note: 

...the NSB functions within the context of a culturally distinct society...Although it performs 

the usual functions of a borough government, the NSB’s interests and activities have 

demonstrated a commitment to maintaining the traditional values, language, and culture of 

the Iñupiat people. 

Much of the credit for the Borough’s formative years goes to the late Eben Hopson, a widely 

respected Iñupiaq elder, visionary and statesman, who defined the primary goal as providing residents 

with the same basic services enjoyed by other Americans (North Slope Borough School District, 

2005a). For further information about Eben Hopson and his influence during the formative years of 

the NSB and economy of the North Slope region, see http://www.ebenhopson.com/bio/FinalBio.html. 

In short, the discovery of oil accelerated political processes for resolving complex issues of land tenure 

and rights without which investment in, and development of, the oil fields would have been 

impossible (National Research Council, 2003). Of major importance was passage of ANCSA, which 

established the ASRC and village corporations and led to the founding of the NSB. These events have 

been the primary factors in the growth, concentration, and development of the communities and 

populations on the North Slope (National Research Council, 2003). 

2.3 Major Milestones 

While change has been a constant for the inhabitants of the North Slope, several major events 

occurring during the last few decades contributed to key structural changes that created the North 

Slope economy as it exists today. These events are described in the following paragraphs (the time 

line is depicted in Figure 2-1). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

18 Final

Figure 2-1. Milestones in the North Slope Economy since Alaska Statehood 

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000+ 

1972 

North 

Slope 

Borough 

1968 

Prudhoe 

Bay Oil 

Discovery

1959 

Alaska 

Statehood 

1971 

ANCSA 

Enacted 

1988 

North 

Slope Oil 

Production 

Peaks

1980 

ANILCA 

Passed 

1977 

TAPS 

Startup Oil 

Flows

1985 

Economic 

Recession 

NPR-A 

Leasing 

Alaska Statehood 

On January 3, 1959, President Eisenhower signed the official declaration that made Alaska the 49th

state. State agencies were established and programs were implemented. Even though the time frame 

of this study is 1965 to 2005, this particular event is deemed relevant because the impacts of 

statehood carried over from 1959 as various state programs were developed and implemented. 

Discovery of Prudhoe Bay Oil Field 

The discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field in 1968 proved to be one of the most important events in 

the economic development of the North Slope and the State of Alaska. Construction of the TransAlaska Pipeline System (TAPS), the only means to move crude oil from Alaska’s North Slope fields to 

tankers in Valdez, began in 1975 and was completed in 1977. At peak production, the Prudhoe Bay 

oil field supplied 3 percent of the world’s oil. The state government, which owns the Prudhoe Bay oil 

field, has collected $69 billion in petroleum revenues through 2004 (AOGA, 2005). These revenues 

have paid almost all state general expenses since 1978. The NSB’s revenues from taxes levied on oil 

and gas properties have also been substantial. 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

The passage of ANCSA in 1971 established 12 regional and more than 200 village Alaska Native 

corporations throughout the state. While by no means being the only factor in determining the 

settlement of aboriginal land claims, the timing and structure of this Act can be directly traced to the 

Prudhoe Bay discoveries and the desire to develop the finds. 

Forty-four million acres and $1 billion were appropriated to the various Alaska Native corporations. As 

a result, these corporations became the largest private land owners (12 percent of Alaska lands) in the 

state. In the NSB, ASRC, Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation, and other village corporations were formed. 

The formation of these corporations granted the North Slope Iñupiat a vehicle for further economic 

development and consequently affected village lifestyles. The annual dividends paid out to their 

shareholders have increased significantly since the corporations were formed. 

Establishment of the North Slope Borough 

The NSB was incorporated as a first class borough on July 2, 1972 under the laws of the State of 

Alaska. The borough is a regional local government, similar to the county form of government in most 

of the lower 48 states, and the timing of its formation, like ANCSA, can be traced back to factors 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 19 

related to regional oil development. Incorporation of the Borough allowed local residents a chance to 

overcome the influence of the federal government with respect to education and health care 

(Harcharek, 2004). The State of Alaska’s neglect in delivering basic services that were afforded to 

many other communities in the State was also an important determining factor in the Borough’s 

creation. The NSB assumed responsibilities for providing services such as sewer, water, light, power 

and heating systems, housing, health facilities, transportation infrastructures, police and fire 

protection. In this and numerous other ways, the Borough substantially improved the quality of life of 

North Slope residents. 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The Act 

made 104 million acres of Alaskan land into national parks and preserves, national forests, and 

national fish and wildlife preserves (Alaska History and Cultural Studies, 2005). On the North Slope, in 

addition to adding lands to park and preserve status in the Gates of the Arctic National Park and the 

Noatak National Preserve, this Act established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANILCA challenged 

federal land managers to balance the national interest in Alaska’s scenic and wildlife resources with 

recognition of Alaska’s fledgling economy and infrastructure, and its distinctive rural way of life (Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources, 2005). 

Economic Recession and Recovery 

The economic boom in Alaska associated with the construction of TAPS and subsequent oil 

production on the North Slope came to an abrupt halt in 1985, when the world oil price fell below 

$10 per barrel. The resultant drop in Alaska’s oil revenues led to severe cutbacks in government 

services and programs, and economic activity in the state declined markedly. There was a dramatic 

increase in home loan foreclosure rates, business bankruptcy rates, and high rates of out-migration 

from Alaska. In 1989, clean-up activities after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound 

created a high level of economic activity, and Alaska’s economy started to rebound. Since the 1990s, 

Alaska has experienced a period of relative economic stability. 

Opening of National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to Industry 

Oil exploration of Alaska's North Slope began in the 23 million acre area known as the Naval 

Petroleum Reserve in 1923. In 1976, with the passage of the Naval Petroleum Reserve Production 

Act, Congress transferred management of the Reserve from the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Department of 

the Interior and re-named it the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). In 1980, the NPR-A was 

opened to oil company leasing and development. The Bureau of Land Management in the U.S. 

Department of Interior, conducted lease sales during the early 1980s. The leases eventually expired, 

but interest in re-opening lease sales within the NPR-A occurred in 1997 with the announcement of 

the Alpine oil development in the Colville River Delta adjacent to the Reserve. The Bureau of Land 

Management held lease sales in the NPR-A in 1999 and 2002. Under the NPR-A Impact Mitigation 

Program, North Slope municipalities have received approximately $68 million in grants to mitigate 

adverse impacts due to oil and gas developments in the Reserve. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

20 Final
Final 21 

3 Structure of the North Slope Economy 

The discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay, the inception of the NSB in 1972, and the formation of the 

regional and village Alaska Native corporations changed the structure of the North Slope economy. 

Prior to these developments, both public and private employment opportunities on the North Slope 

were limited. The North Slope villages could only afford limited local government, and the year-round 

jobs were mostly associated with federal and state agencies. The U.S. Naval Arctic Research 

Laboratory and the U.S. Air Force Distant Early Warning (DEW) Program, established in 1947 and 

1954, respectively, provided the majority of the steady paying jobs in the region at that time. 

Major economic changes occurred with the formation of the NSB and its ability to tax oil 

development at Prudhoe Bay and related industrial facilities. Between 1973 and 1980, the NSB 

collected about $150 million in property taxes from oil companies operating out of Prudhoe Bay, and 

an additional $88 million in state and federal monies (ISER, 1984). As a result, the Borough took over 

from the state and federal entities many public services in the villages. During this time, the Borough 

implemented major infrastructure projects (i.e. schools, houses, utility systems, airports, roads, etc.); 

and the Borough soon after became the largest employer of North Slope residents with jobs created 

for government administration and construction projects. 

The oil industrial complex on the North Slope has limited direct linkages to the rest of the region’s 

economy. Some of the oilfield service companies operating in the Prudhoe Bay and Alpine areas are 

subsidiaries (or joint ventures) of ASRC and village corporations (see Chapter 5). These service 

companies have provided jobs to a number of local residents. However, few North Slope residents 

have been employed by the large, multinational corporations that produce the oil (some of the 

reasons for the low resident employment are discussed in Chapter 7). Although the oil producing 

companies are the largest employers in the region, nearly all their employees are non-residents, and 

virtually all of the income earned by these employees is spent outside of the North Slope 

communities. The oil producers do, however, indirectly support jobs in the communities through 

property tax payments, the main source of capital and operating revenue for the NSB. 

According to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, about 15 percent of the 

total private sector jobs in the NSB were held by North Slope residents. In contrast, 86 percent of the 

local government jobs in 2003 were held by local residents; and about 51 percent of state jobs were 

held by local residents (ADOLWD Alaska Economic Trends, January 2005). 

This chapter describes the changes in the structure of the North Slope economy by examining 

historical employment information by sector, top employment sectors, and demographic shifts in 

labor force composition. The discussion highlights shifts in the composition of the regional economy 

by indicating changes in employment by industry through the years. Community-level trends in 

employment by sector are also discussed. Changes in the demographic composition of labor are also 

analyzed. The sectors included in the analysis correspond with the standard industrial classification. It 

is important to recognize that on the North Slope, subsistence is an integral component of the noncash economy. The relationship between the cash economy and traditional subsistence practices is 

discussed in detail in Chapter 7. Income trends are also discussed in Chapter 7 as part of the quality 

of life indicators. 

3.1 North Slope Employment by Industry 

The focus of this report is the economy of North Slope communities. (Figure 3-1) Unfortunately, there 

is no consistent source of annual employment data from 1965 to present of residents of North Slope 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

22 Final

communities. Annual employment data by place of work obtained from DOLWD, which includes 

non-resident workers, are also presented in this section. The data contrast the number and types of 

jobs held by residents and non-residents. 

For resident employment, data for the years 1980, 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003 are available from 

the economic profiles and census reports prepared by the NSB. Resident employment data were also 

obtained from DOLWD for the years 1993 to 2002. DOLWD uses information obtained from the 

permanent fund dividend applications to the State of Alaska to track residency and employment. 

Figure 3-1. Map of North Slope Communities. 

Source: North Slope Borough (www.north-slope.org/ihlc/_private/pages/map.htm) 

3.1.1 Employment by Place of Residence based on Data from NSB Census Reports 

The NSB publishes economic profiles and census reports that contain data from survey efforts 

designed to collect economic and demographic information from the eight communities on the North 

Slope. Although the NSB census reports are conducted only periodically, this data source provides 

historical employment information on North Slope residents, showing more detailed employment 

sectors particularly on regional/village corporations, and the public sectors. This section presents data 

for the years 1980, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003. Other published research reports are also referenced to 

get additional information for the years prior to 1980. Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 show the estimated 

total number of jobs held by of the North Slope residents, by sector. Table 3-3 through Table 3-10 

present the number of jobs and the percent share of each sector, by community for the years 1980, 

1988, 1993, 1998, 2003. 

Government continues to be the primary source of employment for North Slope residents. There was 

a shift however from a period of limited local government to a period where the local government 

through the NSB became the most important source of jobs for North Slope residents. Since 1980, 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 23 

the general trend in federal government jobs has been declining, while the number of state 

government jobs held by North Slope residents has been more stable. 

The ASRC and the village corporations also developed into major employers. In the past decade, over 

15 percent of the total jobs held by North Slope residents have been associated with the regional and 

village corporations. ASRC, village corporations, and affiliated firms became involved in construction 

contracts to implement capital improvement projects, in support services for the oil and gas industry, 

and in the retail sector. A more detailed discussion of employment in these corporations is provided 

in Chapter 5 of this report. 

Table 3-1. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Borough, 

1980, 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003 

 1980 1988 1993 1998 2003 

Federal Government 100 83 37 39 61 

State Government 12 20 25 35 26 

City Government 71 61 57 66 

NSB Government 642 1,087 893 989 777 

NSB School District 419 345 289 409 

Private Construction 201 95 21 66 43 

Regional/Village Corporation 311 304 407 383 

Transportation 107 122 45 43 53 

Oil Industry 30 46 21 16 23 

Service 71 84 53 83 108 

Other 176 168 138 368 242 

Total 1,689 2,506 1,943 2,392 2,191 

Sources: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999, 2004; North Slope Borough Department of Planning and 

Community Services, 1989, 1995; Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981 

Table 3-2. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Borough, 

1980, 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003 

Sector 1980 1988 1993 1998 2003 

Federal Government 7 3 2 2 3 

State Government 1 1 1 1 1 

City Government 3 3 2 3 

NSB Government 48 43 46 41 35 

NSB School District 17 18 12 19 

Private Construction 15 4 1 3 2 

Regional/Village Corporation 12 16 17 17 

Transportation 8 5 2 2 2 

Oil Industry 2 2 1 1 1 

Service 5 3 3 3 5 

Other 13 7 7 15 11 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 

Sources: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999, 2004; North Slope Borough Department of Planning and 

Community Services, 1989, 1995; Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

24 Final

Table 3-3. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1980 

Sector 

Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Point 

Hope 

Point 

Lay Wainwright 

Mining 0 0 15 3 6 6 0 0 

Private 

Construction 18 5 91 16 31 35 1 4 

Transportation 0 0 94 10 0 1 0 2 

Trade 4 2 49 1 1 7 0 5 

Finance, 

Insurance, and 

Real Estate 0 1 76 4 5 11 0 10 

Services 0 1 53 2 2 2 1 10 

Federal 

Government 9 0 65 15 7 2 0 2 

State Government 1 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 

Local Government 

non-construction 34 19 398 25 29 57 19 61 

Local Government 

construction 36 17 203 22 17 0 5 50 

Total 102 45 1,052 98 98 124 26 144 

Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981 

Table 3-4. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1980 

Sector 

Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Point Hope 

Point 

Lay Wainwright 

Mining 0 0 1 3 6 5 0 0 

Private 

Construction 18 11 9 16 32 28 4 3 

Transportation 0 0 9 10 0 1 0 1 

Trade 4 4 5 1 1 6 0 3 

Finance, 

Insurance, and 

Real Estate 0 2 7 4 5 9 0 7 

Services 0 2 5 2 2 2 4 7 

Federal 

Government 9 0 6 15 7 2 0 1 

State Government 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 

Local Government 

non-construction 33 42 38 26 30 46 73 42 

Local Government 

construction 35 38 19 22 17 0 19 35 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 25 

Table 3-5. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1993/1994 

Sector Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Point 

Hope 

Point 

Lay Wainwright 

Federal Government 1 0 25 1 1 6 1 2 

State Government 1 0 22 0 0 2 0 0 

City Government 3 4 23 2 3 17 0 9 

NSB Government 35 27 558 23 39 53 30 48 

NSB School District 22 15 165 16 16 57 16 38 

NSB CIP 6 6 28 4 5 15 9 7 

Private Construction 2 1 14 3 0 0 0 1 

ASRC 2 2 62 0 1 2 0 2 

Village Corporation 24 8 105 10 18 37 2 29 

Transportation 1 0 31 2 7 3 0 1 

Oil Industry 0 0 14 0 3 1 0 3 

Service 0 0 47 0 0 3 0 3 

Other 0 1 116 3 3 6 2 7 

Total 97 64 1210 64 96 202 60 150 

Source: North Slope Borough Department of Planning and Community Services, 1995 

Table 3-6. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1993/1994 

Sector Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Point Hope 

Point 

Lay Wainwright 

Federal Government 1 0 2 2 1 3 2 1 

State Government 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 

City Government 3 6 2 3 3 8 0 6 

NSB Government 36 42 46 36 41 26 50 32 

NSB School District 23 23 14 25 17 28 27 25 

NSB CIP 6 9 2 6 5 7 15 5 

Private Construction 2 2 1 5 0 0 0 1 

ASRC 2 3 5 0 1 1 0 1 

Village Corporation 25 13 9 16 19 18 3 19 

Transportation 1 0 3 3 7 1 0 1 

Oil Industry 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 

Service 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 

Other 0 2 10 5 3 3 3 5 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Source: Source: North Slope Borough Department of Planning and Community Services, 1995 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

26 Final

Table 3-7. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1998/1999 

Sector 

Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Point Hope Point Lay Wainwright 

Federal Government 1 1 23 3 2 5 1 3 

State Government 1 1 30 0 1 1 1 6 

City Government 0 0 30 4 7 9 1 0 

NSB Government 34 31 616 32 31 49 32 52 

NSB School District 16 5 176 7 8 33 16 28 

NSB CIP 2 3 55 3 7 12 12 18 

Private Construction 0 2 30 5 12 10 1 6 

ASRC 0 0 108 2 0 4 4 14 

Village Corporation 16 5 81 15 33 71 6 48 

Transportation 0 0 38 1 2 1 0 1 

Oil Industry 1 0 11 0 3 1 0 0 

Service 0 0 71 2 1 2 0 7 

Other 9 8 272 2 17 24 6 56 

Total 80 56 1,541 76 124 222 80 239 

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999 

Table 3-8. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1998/1999 

Sector 

Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Point Hope Point Lay Wainwright 

Federal Government 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 

State Government 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 3 

City Government 0 0 2 5 6 4 1 0 

NSB Government 43 55 40 42 25 22 40 22 

NSB School District 20 9 11 9 6 15 20 12 

NSB CIP 3 5 4 4 6 5 15 8 

Private Construction 0 4 2 7 10 5 1 3 

ASRC 0 0 7 3 0 2 5 6 

Village Corporation 20 9 5 20 27 32 8 20 

Transportation 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 

Oil Industry 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 

Service 0 0 5 3 1 1 0 3 

Other 11 14 18 3 14 11 8 23 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 27 

Table 3-9. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Sector, North Slope Communities, 2003 

 Sector 

Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Point Hope Point Lay Wainwright 

Federal Government 1 0 45 1 0 10 2 2 

State Government 2 0 22 0 1 0 1 0 

City Government 12 1 21 3 5 14 2 8 

NSB Government 51 20 464 27 29 44 24 48 

NSB School District 30 20 194 21 27 62 29 44 

NSB CIP 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 3 

Oil Industry 3 0 14 1 3 2 0 0 

Private Construction 4 0 23 5 3 1 4 4 

ASRC 3 0 69 5 3 1 4 3 

Village Corporation 19 27 87 18 37 60 9 38 

Finance 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 

Transportation 0 0 48 0 1 3 1 1 

Communications 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 

Trade 0 1 27 0 0 2 0 1 

Service 4 0 103 0 0 0 1 0 

Ilisagvik College 0 0 58 0 0 2 1 1 

Other 2 3 132 3 10 25 5 18 

Total 131 72 1,324 84 121 226 85 171 

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 2004 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

28 Final

Table 3-10. Percent of Total Resident Employment by Sector, North Slope Communities, 2003 

Sector 

Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Point Hope Point Lay Wainwright 

Federal Government 1 0 3 1 0 4 2 1 

State Government 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 

City Government 9 1 2 4 4 6 2 5 

NSB Government 39 28 35 32 24 19 28 28 

NSB School District 23 28 15 25 22 27 34 26 

NSB CIP 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 

Oil Industry 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 

Private Construction 3 0 2 6 2 0 5 2 

ASRC 2 0 5 6 2 0 5 2 

Village Corporation 15 38 7 21 31 27 11 22 

Finance 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Transportation 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 1 

Communications 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Trade 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 

Service 3 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 

Ilisagvik College 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 

Other 2 4 10 4 8 11 6 11 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 2004 

3.1.2 Employment by Place of Residence based on Data from Alaska Department of Labor 

and Workforce Development 

DOLWD provided annual resident employment data from 1993 to 2002 that correspond with the 

standard industrial classification (SIC) system. This annual data allows examination of the trends in 

resident employment by sector18. It can be noted that there have been significant changes in the level 

of employment in the government, construction, and services sectors during the period 1993 to 2002. 

Recent trends indicate that employment in the services sector is growing; the number of jobs in the 

construction sector is declining; and recent employment levels in the local government sector are 

lower compared to the employment levels in the mid-1990s. 

Figure 3-3 though Figure 3-10 show the top employment sectors in the nine North Slope 

communities. Community employment trends indicate an increasing level of employment in 

community local government after year 2000; with the exception of Nuiqsut where there was a 

decline in local government jobs from 2001 to 2002 but also a sharp increase in jobs in the heavy 

construction sector. 

General merchandise stores, construction, and holdings and other investment offices (mostly jointventures and subsidiaries of Alaska Native corporations) are also major employment sectors in the 

North Slope communities. 

 

18 It should be noted that data obtained from DOLWD are collected and estimated differently from the data 

provided in Section 3.1.1 which presents employment information estimated by the North Slope Borough. Data 

are not directly comparable. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 29 

Figure 3-2. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by SIC Sector, North Slope Borough, 1993-2002 

0

150

300

450

600

750

900

1,050

1,200

1,350

1,500

1,650

1,800

1,950

2,100

2,250

2,400

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Number of Jobs

Local Govt.

Construction

Trade (Retail & Wholesale)

Finance, Ins. and R.E.

Services

Trans., Comm., Util.

Mining

State Govt.

Manufacturing

 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

Figure 3-3. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Anaktuvuk Pass, 1993-2002 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Local Government

Building construction-general

contractors and operative

builders

Holding & other investment

offices

Membership organizations

Transportation services

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

30 Final

Figure 3-4. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Atqasuk, 1993 to 2002 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Local Government

Holding & other investment

offices

Building construction-general

contractors and operative

builders

Engineering, accounting

research mgmt and related

services

Eating & drinking places

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

Figure 3-5. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Barrow, 1993-2002 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Local Government

Building construction-general

contractors and operative

builders

Holding & other investment

offices

Membership organizations

General merchandise stores

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 31 

Figure 3-6. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Kaktovik, 1993-2002 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Local Government

Holding & other investment

offices

Construction-special trade

contractors

Building construction-general

contractors and operative

builders

Heavy construction other than

building constructioncontractors

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

Figure 3-7. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Nuiqsut, 1993-2002 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Local Government

General merchandise stores

Building construction-general

contractors and operative

builders

Holding & other investment

offices

Heavy construction other than

building constructioncontractors

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

32 Final

Figure 3-8. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Point Hope, 1993-2002 

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Local Government

General merchandise stores

Heavy construction other than

building constructioncontractors

Membership organizations

Building construction-general

contractors and operative

builders

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

Figure 3-9. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Point Lay, 1993-2002 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Local Government

Building construction-general

contractors and operative

builders

General merchandise stores

Holding & other investment

offices

Membership organizations

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 33 

Figure 3-10. Estimated Number of Resident Jobs by Employment Sector, Wainwright, 1993-2002 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Local Government

General merchandise stores

Building construction-general

contractors and operative

builders

Membership organizations

Oil and gas extraction

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

3.1.3 Resident and Non-resident Employment by Place of Work 

Figure 3-11 shows the trend in total employment on the North Slope from 1965 to 2003; these jobs 

include both residents and non-residents of the North Slope Region. As noted in Section 1.2, 

historical U.S. Census Bureau data correspond to two slightly different geographic areas. The 

employment figures in the first data series (1968 to 1979) are for the Barrow Census Division (which 

only included the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Barrow, and Wainwright), while the figures in the 

second data series (1980 to 1998) are for the North Slope Borough and cover all eight North Slope 

communities. 

Total employment in the region increased sharply between 1974 and 1975. The total number of nonagricultural wage and salary employees on the North Slope peaked in 1983 (10,318 jobs), due 

primarily to a peak construction year. The period from 1983 to 1987 saw a decline in the total 

number of jobs in the region as a result of lost employment in the construction and transportation, 

communications, and utility (TCU) sectors. 

In the 1970s, employment opportunities greatly expanded. Numerous jobs were created to support 

local services provided by the newly formed NSB government, to support major construction projects 

(i.e., oil field facilities, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, and the Dalton Highway), and to support the 

newly established operations of ASRC and the village corporations. During this decade, the number of 

non-agricultural wage and salary jobs grew by 192 percent, with most of the job growth attributable to 

the significant increase in construction jobs. On the average, the construction sector supported about 

thirty percent of the jobs in the region from 1970 to 1980. The oil production facilities at Prudhoe 

Bay are the single most important employer in the region. However, the jobs in the oil industry are 

predominantly held by non-resident workers. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

34 Final

The early 1980s saw a continuation of the construction boom, primarily associated with the capital 

improvement projects of the NSB. Starting in the late 1970s, the Borough began construction of new 

schools, houses, utility systems, airports, and roads in North Slope communities. The number of 

construction jobs declined from 3,242 in 1983 to 373 in 1989. However, the number of mining jobs 

increased during the 1983-1989 period from 3,324 to 5,126. Government jobs continued to grow at 

a modest rate (about 3 percent per year) and employment in the services sector began to expand. 

The 1990s was the decade of stabilized growth in employment, with less volatility in the construction 

and government sectors compared to the previous two decades. Towards the end of the 1990s, the 

mining sector experienced a sharp decline in employment followed by a rebound. Employment in 

other sectors continued to slowly expand throughout the 1990s. 

Today, expansion in the private support sector is still largely dependent on developments in the oil 

and gas industry and government expenditures. The recent budgetary problems of the NSB and the 

consequent reductions in both capital and operating expenditures will continue to constrain 

economic activities in the region, affecting employment and income growth. 

Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13 show the annual trends in employment by top employment sectors in the 

North Slope region. 

Figure 3-11. Estimated Number of Resident and Non-resident Jobs, North Slope Borough,1965-2003 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001

1965 to 1979 1980 to 2003

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 35 

Figure 3-12. Estimated Number of Resident and Non-resident Jobs by Place of Work, North Slope Borough, 

1968-1979 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

Number of Jobs

Mining Construction Services Government

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

36 Final

Figure 3-13. Estimated Number of Resident and Non-resident Jobs by Place of Work, North Slope Borough, 

1980-2001 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Number of Jobs

Mining Construction Services Government

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

3.2 Changes and Trends in Labor Force Composition 

This section describes changes in the composition of resident workers on the North Slope. The 

changes in gender and ethnicity composition of the different employment sectors are shown using 

information from surveys commissioned by the NSB at different points in time and from the 2000 

U.S. Census. Additional information on North Slope employment with respect to gender and ethnicity 

is provided in Chapter 7. 

3.2.1 Gender 

Information on the share of male and female resident workers by industry was obtained from surveys 

conducted by Alaska Consultants, Inc. (1981), the North Slope Borough, Department of Planning and 

Community Services (1989), and the 2000 U.S. Census. Comparing total numbers of male and female 

workers across these different surveys to trace historical trends is not possible; nonetheless, the figures 

provided below on the share of male and female employees provide a general indication of gender 

differences across sectors or industries at different periods in time. 

The 1980 survey conducted by Alaska Consultants, Inc. indicated that in all sectors except state 

government, the majority of the employed resident labor force were men (Figure 3-14). Following the 

trend in the 1970s, the trade, FIRE, services, and local government sectors employed more women 

compared to the traditionally male-dominated sectors of mining, construction, and TCU. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 37 

In the 1988 survey conducted by the NSB, the fisheries, mining, construction, TCU, and the ASRC 

and its affiliates employed more males than females (Figure 3-15). That year, the female dominated 

sector was the FIRE sector, with 80 percent of that sector’s workers being women. The government 

sectors employed almost equal shares of male and female workers (North Slope residents). 

In general, the 2000 Census survey results show no apparent change in gender composition of North 

Slope residents employed in the different industries (Figure 3-16). 

Figure 3-14. Percent of Male and Female Resident Workers by Industry, North Slope Borough, 1980 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Mining

Construction

TCPU

Trade

FIRE

Services

Federal Gov't

State Gov't

Local Gov't

Female

Male

Notes: 

1. Respondents were asked to list their employer or major source of income. Part-time employment and fulltime employment were not differentiated. The employment figures exclude respondents who listed various 

forms of assistance, mainly Social Security as their major source of income. 

2. Acronyms: TCPU stands for Transportation, Communication, and Public Utilities; FIRE stands for Finance, 

Insurance, and Real Estate 

Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981; North Slope Borough Housing Survey, 1980. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

38 Final

Figure 3-15. Percent of Male and Female Resident Workers by Industry, North Slope Borough, 1988 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Fisheries

Mining

Construction

TCU

Trade

FIRE

Services

Native Corp. & affiliate

Other

Local Gov't

State Gov't

Federal Gov't

Female

Male

Note: Acronyms: TCU stands for Transportation, Communication, and Utilities; FIRE stands for Finance, 

Insurance, and Real Estate 

Source: North Slope Borough Department of Planning and Community Services, 1989. 

Figure 3-16. Percent of Male and Female Resident Workers by Industry, North Slope Borough, 2000 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Agric./ Forestry/Fishing/Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Trade

Transportation,Warehousing, & Utilities

Information

FIRE

Services

Public Administration

Female

Male

Note: FIRE stands for Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 39 

3.2.2 Ethnicity 

This section discusses the differences in the composition of labor by ethnicity across the different 

industries on the North Slope. The information available for this analysis was obtained from the same 

surveys described in the previous section. Figure 3-17 chart shows that 100 percent of the North 

Slope residents who held mining sector jobs in 1980 were Alaska Natives. However, it should be 

noted that jobs in this sector are predominantly held by non-resident workers. In 1980, non-Native 

residents held over half of the federal government jobs, construction jobs, and TCU jobs; while the 

state and local government sectors employed a larger share of Alaska Natives. In 1988, mining, 

construction, the Alaska Native corporations, and local government had more Alaska Native 

employees than non-Native employees. The non-Native members of the workforce were more 

concentrated in the fisheries sector, federal and state government sectors, and the support industries 

such as TCU, trade, FIRE, and services (Figure 3-18). 

Figure 3-19 and Figure 3-20 show the share of Alaska Native and non-Native resident workers in 

different government sectors and private industries in 1998. The city government and the NSB 

government had more than 50 percent Alaska Native hires. Among the private sector industries, only 

the support industries such as transportation, trade, and services had higher non-Native hires. 

Figure 3-17. Percent of Alaska Native and Non-Native Resident Workers by Sector, North Slope Borough, 

1980 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Mining

Construction

TCPUTrade

FIRE

Services

Federal Gov't

State Gov't

Local Gov't

Non-Native

Native

Notes: 

1. Respondents were asked to list their employer or major source of income. Part-time employment and 

full-time employment were not differentiated. The employment figures exclude respondents who listed 

various forms of assistance, mainly Social Security as their major source of income. 

2. Acronyms: TCPU stands for Transportation, Communication, and Public Utilities; FIRE stands for 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981; North Slope Borough Housing Survey, 1980. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

40 Final

Figure 3-18. Percent of Alaska Native and Non-Native Resident Workers by Sector, 

North Slope Borough, 1988 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Fisheries

Mining

Construction

TCU

Trade

FIRE

Services

Native Corp. & Affiliate

Other

Local Gov't

State Gov't

Federal Gov't

Non-Native

Native

Note: Acronyms: TCU stands for Transportation, Communication, and Utilities; FIRE stands for Finance, 

Insurance, and Real Estate 

Source: North Slope Borough Department of Planning and Community Services, 1989. 

Figure 3-19. Percent of Iñupiat and Non-Iñupiat Resident Workers in the Public Sector, 

North Slope Borough, 1998 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Federal Government

State Governmnet

City Governmnet

NSB Governmnet

NSB School District

Iligsagvik

Non-Inupiat

Inupiat

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 41 

Figure 3-20. Percent of Iñupiat and Non-Iñupiat Resident Workers in Private Industries, 

North Slope Borough, 1998 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

NSB CIP

Oil Industry

Private Construction

ASRC or Subsidiary

Village Corporation

Transportation

Trade

Service

Other

Non-Inupiat

Inupiat

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999 

Figure 3-21. Percent of Resident Employment by Gender and by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1980 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mining

Construction

TCPU

Trade

FIRE

Services

Federal Gov't

State Gov't

Local Gov't

Female

Male

Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

42 Final

Figure 3-22. Percent of Resident Employment by Gender and by Sector, North Slope Communities, 2003 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Federal Gov't

State Gov't

City Gov't

NSB Gov't

NSB School District

NSB CIP

Oil Industry

Private Construction

ASRC

Village Corp

Finance

Transportation

Communications

Trade

Service

Ilisagvik

Other

Female

Male

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 2004 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 43 

Figure 3-23. Percent of Resident Employment by Ethnicity and by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1980 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mining

Construction

TCPU

Trade

FIRE

Services

Federal Gov't

State Gov't

Local Gov't

Non-Native

Native

Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981 

Figure 3-24. Percent of Resident Employment by Ethnicity and by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1993 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Federal Gov't

State Gov't

City Gov't

NSB Gov't

NSB School District

NSB CIP

Private Construction

ASRC

Village Corp

Transportation

Oil Industry

Service

Other

Non-Inupiat

Inupiat

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1995 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

44 Final

Figure 3-25. Percent of Resident Employment by Ethnicity and by Sector, North Slope Communities, 1998 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal Gov't

State Gov't

City Gov't

NSB Gov't

NSB School District

Iligsagvik

NSB CIP

Oil Industry

Private Const'n

ASRC

Village Corp

Transportation

Trade

Service

Other

Non-Inupiat

Inupiat

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1995 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 45 

Figure 3-26. Percent of Resident Employment by Ethnicity and by Sector, North Slope Borough, 2003 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Federal Gov't

State Gov't

City Gov't

NSB Gov't

NSB School District

NSB CIP

Oil Industry

Private Construction

ASRC

Village Corp

Finance

Transportation

Communications

Trade

Service

Ilisagvik

Other

Non-Inupiat

Inupiat

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 2004 

3.3 Changes in Structural Composition of the North Slope Economy 

In this section the structural composition of the regional economy over time is examined by looking at 

the size of firms operating in the region, the number of public versus private jobs, and the types of 

occupations available in the economy. 

The following sub-sections present historical data from the County Business Patterns (CBP) and the 

U.S. Census Bureau. Data for years prior to 1980 are not available. 

3.3.1 Size of Firms 

In general, the majority of the firms or establishments19 on the North Slope are considered small 

businesses. Approximately 46 percent (average from 1982 to 1997) of the firms operating in the 

region had four or less employees; and less than 20 percent of the establishments had more than 19 

employees (Figure 3-27). 

After 1997, the CBP categories for number of employees were changed— the 1 to 4, 5 to 9, and 10 

to 19 categories were aggregated into a single 1 to 19 category. Table 3-11 provides historical data 

 

19 An establishment is a single physical location at which business is conducted or services or industrial 

operations are performed. It is not necessarily identical with a company or enterprise, which may consist of one 

or more establishments. When two or more activities are carried on at a single location under a single 

ownership, all activities generally are grouped together as a single establishment. The entire establishment is 

classified on the basis of its major activity and all data are included in that classification. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

46 Final

from 1982 to 1997 for the categories with fewer than 19 employees. Table 3-12 shows the 

aggregated categories for the years 1982 to 2000. 

Figure 3-27. Share of Number of Establishments by Firm Size, Average from 1982 to 1997 

1 to 4 Employees

47%

5 to 9 Employees

20%

10 to 19 Employees

16%

20 to 49 Employees

13%

50 to 99 Employees

4%

Source: County Business Patterns. 

Table 3-11. Number of Establishments by Range of Employees, All Industries, North Slope Region, 1982-

1997 

Year 1 to 4 Employees 5 to 9 Employees 10 to 19 Employees 

1982 32 14 9 

1983 68 12 11 

1984 44 15 14 

1985 43 16 11 

1986 48 9 13 

1987 43 13 14 

1988 39 11 10 

1989 42 16 10 

1990 36 15 16 

1991 47 18 14 

1992 50 28 23 

1993 48 24 21 

1994 40 34 24 

1995 42 36 20 

1996 58 30 27 

1997 60 32 23 

Note: County Business Patterns series excludes data on self-employed individuals, employees of private 

households, railroad employees, agricultural production employees and most government employees. 

Source: County Business Patterns. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 47 

Table 3-12. Number of Establishments by Range of Employees for all Industries, North Slope Borough, 

1982-2000 

Year 0 to 19 Employees 20 to 99 Employees 100 to 499 Employees Total 

1982 55 17 1 73 

1983 91 17 1 109 

1984 73 13 3 89 

1985 70 13 0 83 

1986 70 15 0 85 

1987 70 11 0 81 

1988 60 13 1 74 

1989 68 12 0 80 

1990 67 14 0 81 

1991 79 16 0 95 

1992 101 22 0 123 

1993 93 25 0 118 

1994 98 24 0 122 

1995 98 25 1 124 

1996 115 19 0 134 

1997 115 19 1 135 

1998 113 23 1 137 

1999 109 25 2 136 

2000 101 29 2 132 

Notes: 

1. County Business Patterns series excludes data on self-employed individuals, employees of private 

households, railroad employees, agricultural production employees and most government employees. 

2. Starting in 1998, data are tabulated by industry as defined in the NAICS. Data for 1997 and earlier years are 

based on the Standard Industry Classification System. 

Source: County Business Patterns. 

3.3.2 Public Sector and Private Sector Jobs 

The U.S. Census data distinguishes between private and public sector jobs for North Slope residents. 

Figure 3-28 shows changes in the shares of private and public sector jobs held by residents in 1980, 

1990 and 2000. As mentioned earlier, government jobs supported most of the resident employment 

in the region. In 1980, the government sector supported 51 percent of the resident employment; by 

1990, this share increased to about 65 percent, and by 2000 about 62 percent of the jobs held by 

residents were in the government sector. In contrast, the share of private sector jobs decreased, from 

47 percent in 1980 to about 36 percent in 2000. 

The number of self-employed workers increased by 171 percent from 1980 (24 self-employed 

workers) to 2000 (65 self-employed workers). While the share of self-employed workers is small (2 

percent), the increasing number of self-employed workers (or entrepreneurs) may indicate an 

important trend towards economic diversification. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

48 Final

Figure 3-28. Share of Employment by Type of Worker, 1980, 1990, 2000 

47.2%

51.0%

33.6%

64.7%

36.1%

61.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Private Wage & Salary Worker Government Workers

1980 1990 2000

Source: United States Census Bureau. 

3.3.3 Types of Occupations 

For the years 1980, 1990, and 2000, Census information was used to show North Slope employment 

by type of occupation. Figure 3-29 compares the share of total jobs of each type of occupation. The 

chart shows that the share of management and professional occupations to total jobs has increased. In 

contrast, the share of construction and maintenance type of jobs to total jobs has decreased. A report 

by ISER (1981) indicated that seventy-five percent of the Iñupiats who had jobs in 1976-1977 worked 

as construction laborers, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, or in some other blue-collar job 

associated with construction projects. 

Service occupations, and sales and office occupations remained relatively stable in 1980, 1990 and 

2000. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 49 

Figure 3-29. North Slope Employment by Occupation, 1980, 1990, and 2000 

21% 20% 21%

38%

30%

17%

24%

29%

34%

18%

22%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Management,

professional, and

related occupations

Service occupations Sales and office

occupations

Construction,

extraction, and

maintenance

occupations

1980 1990 2000

Note: The percentages for each year do not add up to 100 percent; only the four most important types of 

occupation are shown (omitting other types). 

Source: United States Census Bureau. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

50 Final
Final 51 

4 The Role of Local Government 

This chapter describes the trends in revenues and expenditures by local governments on the North 

Slope, including the issues of declining revenues and debt capacity. The focus is on the role of the 

NSB and city governments. An assessment of the role of tribal governments in the North Slope 

economy is provided in Chapter 6. Most of the analysis in this chapter is based on audited financial 

statements and other information obtained from the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community 

and Economic Development and data presented in various publications of the MMS Alaska OCS 

Socioeconomic Studies Program. Revenue and expenditure data from different sources do not always 

match, making it difficult to combine data sets; however, to the extent possible, the analysis provides 

a time series of data that covers the temporal scope of the study. 

4.1 Overview of NSB Government 

The NSB government and Alaska Native corporations have played important roles in shaping the 

North Slope economy. The NSB, however, has been the engine for the regional economy during the 

past three decades. Through its ability to levy taxes on the oil industry operating within the Borough, 

the NSB has provided employment and services to all the area communities. The NSB has also been 

the largest employer of North Slope Iñupiat in the region. Given that one of the primary goals of the 

NSB has been to create employment opportunities for residents, the NSB itself is viewed as the 

primary local industry. Over the past three decades, the NSB has employed many residents directly 

and financed construction projects under its Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which has 

employed numerous additional Borough residents. 

While much of the economic hegemony of the NSB ultimately rests with its ability to tax the oil 

industry, the centralization of authority in the NSB was also the result of a deliberate transfer of power 

from the cities to the Borough. At the time the NSB was established, there was agreement in most 

villages that the Borough would be in a stronger position to procure and administer any available 

funds and operate all basic services and facilities. (Smythe and Worl, 1985). In 1974, the communities 

of Wainwright, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, Point Hope and Anaktuvuk Pass voted to transfer the following 

responsibilities to the NSB: streets and sidewalks, sewage treatment, water and flood control, hospital 

and health services, telephone, water, light, power, heat, transportation, libraries, airport and aviation 

facilities, garbage and solid-waste collection and disposal, housing and urban renewal, and historic 

site preservation and protection. By 1975, the education system had been turned over to the newly 

created NSB School District,20 and in 1976, police power was taken over by the Borough. 

4.2 Overview of City Governments 

The North Slope includes eight permanent residential communities: Point Hope, Point Lay, 

Wainwright, Barrow, Atqasuk, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Anaktuvuk Pass. Barrow is a first class city. All 

other North Slope communities are second class cities with the exception of Point Lay, which has not 

been incorporated under state law as a municipality. 

 

20 At the time the NSB was incorporated, both the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and the State of Alaska operated 

schools in the region (Underwood et al., 1978). The Wainwright, Kaktovik and Barrow schools were run by the 

BIA and those in Point Hope and Anaktuvuk Pass were part of the state system. The borough took over the 

Point Hope and Anaktuvuk Pass schools from the State in 1974, while the BIA turned over the Barrow, 

Wainwright, and Kaktovik schools in 1975. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

52 Final

Prior to the founding of the NSB, the city governments were the only governing agencies that 

operated in most villages on a daily basis (Luton, 1985). Representatives of state and federal agencies, 

including such important functionaries as BIA officials and state police officers, would commute to the 

villages on an intermittent basis. 

As discussed above, the majority of the villages on the North Slope transferred nearly all municipal 

powers to the NSB. While each of the communities is independent, they receive several necessary 

community services through the NSB. For example, in most villages the NSB Department of Public 

Works is responsible for the operation and maintenance of community utilities, roads, airports, transit 

systems, sewage and solid waste disposal, and washeterias. In addition, the NSB’s CIP has been a 

driving force behind the villages’ cash economies. When the village corporations were able to involve 

themselves in construction activities, the CIP also provided the corporations with much of their forprofit business. 

Although the North Slope villages contributed to the development of a strong regional government 

(and weakened village governments), the North Slope Iñupiat continued to strongly identify 

themselves with community social units (Worl et al. 1981).21 Worl and McMillan (1981) note that the 

regional political alliance of the North Slope communities did not alter established methods of 

governing community affairs. In giving over certain municipal powers to the Borough, the villages lost 

the direct management and decision-making responsibilities for the delivery of services and programs 

and for the construction of related facilities. However, city councils have often played a key role in 

the administration of the NSB’s programs and projects by representing community interests and 

priorities to the appropriate borough department or directly to the NSB Mayor (Smythe and Worl, 

1985). For example, the councils have demonstrated that they are capable of exerting pressures on 

the Borough when the NSB’s services do not adequately meet local needs and ensuring that 

employment in local service positions go to community residents.22 Moreover, the councils have 

become the vehicles through which the innumerable state and federal public hearings are held (Worl 

and McMillan, 1981). These public hearings frequently relate to potential petroleum exploration and 

development which may affect the communities.23

4.3 The Role of the North Slope Borough 

This section presents the major revenues and expenditures of the NSB, discusses the trends in 

revenues and expenditures over the years (1975 to 2003), and briefly describes the per capita 

perspective of debt levels and assessed values, as well as budgetary challenges with respect to 

potential future shortfalls in NSB revenues. 

4.3.1 Primary Revenues and Expenditures 

The primary revenue and expenditure streams for the NSB are property taxes, capital improvement 

project expenditures, and debt service. These streams are important because the NSB issues general 

 

21 In 1984, the NSB proposed the abolition of all city governments within the borough, but the proposal was 

defeated (Luton, 1985). 

22 City councils have also been involved in approving future occupants of housing projects constructed by the 

NSB (Smythe and Worl, 1985). 

23 At times the villages have responded to perceived threats from oil and gas development in a manner that 

underscores their independence from the NSB. In the late 1970s, for example, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut and Barrow 

filed a lawsuit to stop the Beaufort Sea oil and gas lease sale (Worl et al. 1981). Both the NSB and ASRC 

opposed the initiation of the suit although they supported the same goal. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 53 

revenue bonds based on its ability to collect property taxes (with an emphasis on oil and gas 

properties). The NSB, in turn, provides assistance to the cities in the Borough. While each city gets 

assistance through a variety of borough departments, most of the assistance takes the form of financial 

support for capital projects. 

Because the revenue the NSB receives from taxes levied on oil and gas properties far exceeds that 

received from other sources such intergovernmental (state and federal) transfers, charges for services 

and utilities, or interest earnings, the nature of these property taxes is discussed in greater detail 

below. 

4.3.1.1 Property Taxes 

As discussed in Chapter 2, the incorporation of the NSB as a first-class borough in 1972 enabled the 

NSB government to exercise its taxing authority to receive large revenues from Prudhoe Bay oil and 

gas properties. However, the rate at which the Borough may tax property to raise revenue for 

operating purposes is restricted by state law. 

The current laws on oil and gas property taxes were developed during the a special session of the 

state legislature that began in October 1973. 24 Under these statutes, each municipality with oil and 

gas property within its boundaries is reimbursed an amount equal to the taxes which would have 

been levied on the oil and gas property, up to a 20-mill limit. Under Section 29.45.080 of the Alaska 

Statutes, a municipality may levy and collect taxes on oil and gas property by using one of two 

methods: 

1) a municipality may levy a tax at a rate not to exceed that which produces an amount of revenue 

from the total municipal property tax equivalent to $1,500 a year for each person residing in its 

boundaries; 25 or 

2) a municipality may levy a tax on value that, when combined with the value of property otherwise 

taxable by the municipality, does not exceed the product of 225 percent of the average per capita 

assessed full and true value of property in the state multiplied by the number of residents of the taxing 

municipality. 

The NSB first used the second method in calculating its oil and gas property tax levy in 1978 

(Harcharek, 2004). In 1985, questions were raised about NSB’s use of the method, but in that same 

year the Alaska Attorney General stated that NSB’s interpretation of the tax statutes was “reasonable 

and defensible” (Harcharek, 2004). 

Because the 225 percent method is tied to the population of the NSB, the procedure for determining 

the population of the Borough—in particular the number of oil workers who may be counted in the 

Borough's population—has an enormous indirect impact on the ability of the NSB to tax oil and gas 

property and became a subject of political dispute (Worl and Smythe, 1986). The Alaska Statutes 

requires that the population estimate be based on the latest statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau or on 

other reliable population data. According to Bob Harcharek, NSB Senior Planner, “The North Slope 

Borough, recognizing limitations of the U.S. Census, has conducted its own local census periodically 

 

24 The limitation on municipal taxing authority as well as a ceiling on property tax rates were imposed as a direct 

response to the formation of the NSB (Luton, 1985). In 1973, the oil Industry and state administration sued to 

invalidate the incorporation of the NSB , thereby challenging the NSB’s authority to tax oil and gas property. In 

1974, the Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the suit, stating that the local NSB government was needed to 

protect Iñupiat culture and subsistence activities (Harcharek, 2004). 

25 Initially, the formula for calculating the levy was $1,000 per capita. The State Legislature increased the value 

to $1,500 in 1976. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

54 Final

since 1989 in order to reflect accurately the population of its communities. ...Since 1989, the 

borough has successfully challenged the State of Alaska’s population estimates for Tax Cap 

Determination purposes by utilizing its own census figures (Alaska Native Policy Center, 2004:28).” 

The NSB considers oil workers as residents for purposes of taxation. 

The Alaska Statutes provides that limitations on the amount of property tax that may be collected 

apply only to taxes for operating expenses. By limiting the amount of operating revenues the “tax cap” 

would, in effect, have limited the number of jobs created by the NSB (Worl and Smythe, 1986). 

However, the bonding powers of the Borough enabled it to sidestep the limitation (Worl and Smythe, 

1986). The NSB claimed that the statutory limits on local government taxation did not apply to debt 

service but only to operating revenues. In 1978, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld this interpretation 

of the law (Harcharek, 2004),26 and borough officials decided to use general obligation bonds to fund 

its CIP and create jobs on construction projects. The bonds are authorized by vote of the North Slope 

Borough Assembly and ratified by a simple majority of voters. The full faith and credit of the Borough 

is pledged to guarantee payment of the bonds. Over the past three decades the Borough has raised 

billions of dollars for capital projects by selling bonds and then taxing Prudhoe Bay property to retire 

the new bonded indebtedness. 

The borough mill rate in FY 1978 was set at 7.52 mills. This includes a tax at the rate of 2.12 mills 

which is the subject of debt service litigation. The FY 1994 mill rate applied by the NSB to assessed 

property was 18.5 mills. This rate is the sum of a rate of 4.78 mills for operations and 13.72 mills for 

debt service. Although the mill rate for operations is at the limit allowed by state statutes, the NSB’s 

mill rate is unlimited for repayment of bonded indebtedness. Therefore, the NSB administration is not 

now facing any legal constraints to raising the mill rate to repay bonds. Because the NSB mill rate for 

repayment of bonded indebtedness is not limited, short-term revenue constraints do not drive current 

capital expenditures. The state perceives a limit on the mill rate on oil and gas property of 20 mills. 

Therefore, by self-limiting at 18.5 mills, the NSB sets a buffer short of 20 mills, which allows for the 

capability to increase revenues if assessed values fall unexpectedly. 

Debt issues could be used to raise money without a specified purpose, and the Borough was able to 

make large gains through arbitrage. The ability to use arbitrage for funding was the main source of 

funding, and was directly responsible for growth in the late 80s. The old tax regulations allowed 

unlimited arbitrage transactions National Arbitrage Policy. 

4.3.2 Trends and Issues in NSB Revenues and Expenditures 

Figure 4-1 presents NSB revenues from taxes levied on oil and gas properties on the North Slope from 

1973 through 2003, as reported by the Assessor’s Office. The NSB industrial property tax base at 

Prudhoe Bay and along the trans-Alaska pipeline was assessed at $5 billion in 1979, increasing to $14 

billion by 1985. Oil and gas tax revenues increased rapidly from 1975 through 1986, peaking in 1986 

at $240 million. As the value of the oil and gas production and pipeline property depreciates, the tax 

revenues to the Borough have declined. 

 

26 Section 29.53.055 (now section 29.45.100) of the Alaska Statutes states that there is no limit on taxes levied 

or pledged to pay or secure payment of the principal and interest on bonds. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 55 

Figure 4-1. Oil and Gas Property Tax Revenues, North Slope Borough, 1975-2003 

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$180,000,000

$200,000,000

$220,000,000

$240,000,000

$260,000,000

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Office of the State 

Assessor. 

Other sources of borough revenues are the state and federal governments, mainly for health and 

education programs; state revenue sharing funds and grants-in-aid are another important form of 

intergovernmental revenues. The NSB also collects revenues from fees charged for utilities and other 

services provided by the Borough. Government enterprises use these fees to offset the costs of 

providing those services. Between 1980 and 1991, the NSB levied a three percent consumer sales tax 

which was restricted to the first $1,000 of each retail sale (Kruse at al., 1983).27 The originating 

ordinance showed eight exemptions from the tax, including groceries, fuel for home consumption and 

the sale of basic necessities. Other revenues include taxes on non-oil and gas properties, interest 

earnings on investments of the Borough, gaming revenues and rental property revenues. All other 

local revenue sources including those that do not accrue on a regular basis are combined in the 

“other local sources” category; this may include sales of properties, fines and other fees, interest 

earnings, building rental, etc. The amount of revenues from this source generally has been on a 

declining trend since 1985; the exact cause or causes of this declining trend have not been 

documented as this category has been used as a catch-all category. 

 

27 The sales tax was repealed in 1991 when a payment in lieu of taxes for economic development was 

negotiated with the oil industry. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

56 Final

Figure 4-2. Revenues Excluding Oil and Gas Property Tax Revenues, North Slope Borough, 1975-2002 

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Non Oil & Gas Property Tax Sales Tax InterGovernmental Revenue Enterprise Other Local Sources

Note: Data for enterprise, intergovernmental and non-oil and gas property tax revenues were unavailable for 

1984. Estimates of revenues from other local sources were unavailable for the years 1973 to 1984. The 

estimates of revenues from non-oil and gas property taxes for 1985 and 1987 were not included because of 

questions about their validity.

Sources: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Office of the State 

Assessor; Kruse, et al., 1983. 

NSB expenditures fall into three general categories: operating expenditures (public services, education 

and general government), debt service, and capital expenditures (Figure 4-3). As noted above, the 

NSB has financed virtually all of its capital expenditures with general obligation bonds. The Borough’s 

debt service and operating expenditures were primarily financed with property tax revenues. Public 

services have consumed the largest share of the operating budget, followed by education and general 

government expenses. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 57 

Figure 4-3. Major Expenditures, North Slope Borough, 1973-2000 

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Public Services Administration/Finance Education Debt Retirement Capital Projects

 

Note: Data for all expenditures except capital projects were unavailable for the 1973-1978 period and for 1984. 

The estimates of debt service payments for 1990 and 1993 were not included because of questions about their 

validity.

Sources: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003; Kruse, et al., 1983; 

Smythe and Worl, 1985. 

Expenditures in all three categories rose dramatically over the 1979-1983 period. In the early to mid1970s, NSB began to take advantage of property tax revenues available to secure debt. In 1978, the 

Alaska Supreme Court upheld the Borough’s interpretation of statutory limits on local government 

taxation and the CIP program began in full swing. Borough officials used funds borrowed through the 

municipal bond market for needed facilities in the villages, such as housing, schools, medical clinics, 

fire stations, roads, sanitation, and water supplies. Borough Mayor Eben Hopson envisioned a CIP 

program of $500 million and budgeted half that amount during his administration until his death in 

1979.28 There was a corresponding increase in the debt service on the general obligation bonds used 

to finance the CIP. 

The administration of Mayor Jacob Adams, which lasted from June 1980 to October of 1981, 

continued many of the programs begun under Hopson, with the exception of the CIP (Smythe and 

Worl, 1985). Adams began a reevaluation of the program with an eye to reduced spending. 

Construction programs were cut back and there was a noted decrease in local employment. 

However, the election of Eugene Brower as mayor in late 1981 brought renewed commitment to 

Hopson’s programs, including the CIP (Smythe and Worl, 1985). In 1983, the CIP expenditure 

 

28 In 1972, Eben Hopson became the first mayor of the NSB, and he was re-elected in 1975 after the NSB 

became a home-rule borough. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

58 Final

jumped to over $300 million. Mayor Brower attributed his move to accelerate the CIP to the growing 

political reaction to the NSB's bond indebtedness, which he felt would result in legislation that would 

limit the Borough's bonding authority (Smythe and Worl, 1985).29 New projects were developed in 

each of the North Slope villages providing the hope of extending employment for as long as possible. 

Millions of dollars of municipal bonds were sold within this period to accelerate the construction of 

schools, health clinics, fire stations, homes, water and electrical utilities and the utilidor system for 

Barrow (the utilidor system alone cost approximately $250 million according to Nebesky (Personal 

communication, September 2002.). By 1983, the NSB’s CIP contained 244 projects with authorized 

expenditures of $809 million (Worl and Smythe, 1986). 

By 1984, the Borough's bonded indebtedness had reached $1.2 billion (about equal to all the 

municipal debt for the rest of the State of Alaska), reflecting the large scale of the CIP (Kruse et al., 

1983; Worl and Smythe, 1986). The idea of a per capita bonded indebtedness approaching 

$100,000 (Section 4.3.3), along with an increasing discontent about the number of CIP contracts 

going to outside firms rather than local companies, precipitated a political crisis in the Borough (Worl 

and Smythe, 1986).30 The amount expended on CIP contracts going to non-local firms increased from 

$11.6 million 1980 to more than $90 million in 1982 (Worl and Smythe, 1986). 

In 1984, George Ahmaogak was elected NSB mayor vowing to introduce a process of fiscal reform 

and to wind down CIP spending (Hess, 1993). 31 At a 1985 private enterprise conference in Barrow, 

Ahmaogak stated that the Borough “cannot continue to be the one primary employer of North Slope 

residents” (Worl and Smythe, 1986). The CIP was dramatically reduced, with capital improvement 

expenditures dropping below $100 million by the 1986. In addition, coinciding with Mayor 

Ahmaogak’s term, the Borough refinanced its debt service when interest rates fell (Nebesky, personal 

communication, September 2002). Annual debt payments declined from $235 M to $175 over 2 to 3 

years. Debt service expenditures began declining in the mid-1990s. However, capital project 

expenditures resumed an upward trend. In 1990, these expenditures were around $55 million, and 

by 1997, they had increased to over $140 million. 

Also during the 1990s, property tax revenue from petroleum installations for the NSB decreased from 

$235 million to $201 million. The declining tax base raised the question of whether the NSB could 

maintain its budget and CIP. When George Ahmaogak was reelected mayor of the NSB in 1999, he 

stated that the economy of the region could be “summed up in two words: declining revenues” 

(Ahmaogak, 2004). The North Slope Borough Mayor’s Office (2005) explained the “budget challenge” 

as follows: 

The Borough derives a major source of its revenue by taxing oil and gas properties on the 

North Slope. These properties value has depreciated over the past 25 years, thus reducing the 

available taxable income to the Borough. The lack of new discoveries and oil infrastructure 

has contributed to the decline in available property taxes. As a result, the Borough’s operating 

budget must have a corresponding decrease, as these funds are not available. 

The mayor identified the need to cut the NSB budget by $30 million from 1999 to 2005 (North Slope 

Borough Mayor’s Office, 2005). To further address the fiscal problems, the NSB contracted the 

consulting firm Information Insights to conduct an organizational study of the Borough (Information 

 

29 In 1983, State legislators introduced legislation to reduce the borough’s bonding authority to $25,000 per 

capita (Smythe and Worl, 1985). However, no legislation was enacted. 

30 According to Kruse et al. (1985), there was also increased uneasiness among private lenders as well as State 

legislators about the size of the borough’s debt and the costs of operating CIP facilities. 

31 George Ahmaogak was reelected in 1987, 1993 and 1999. Jeslie Kaleak was mayor from 1990 to 1993, and 

Ben Nageak was mayor from 1996 to 1999. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 59 

Insights, 2002). The purpose of the study was to find organizational efficiencies and cost savings 

through restructuring. Among the study’s recommendations was that the NSB consider a “cost 

reduction bond” (Information Insights, 2002). This recommendation included increasing the cap on 

debt service from 18.5 to 19 mills for a period to fund projects that would reduce operating expenses. 

Projects identified by Information Insights that might reduce operating costs included converting 

certain vehicles to operate on natural gas (to take advantage of Borough-owned gas resources), energy 

conversion retrofits to buildings, and the purchase of buildings and equipment currently leased from 

outside organizations. Savings from the cost reduction bond are expected to exceed $1 million 

annually. 

4.3.3 Per Capita Perspective 

Table 4-1 shows the assessed value per capita and debt levels per capita from 1972 to 2002. The data 

available indicate that per capita debt peaked in 1991 at $141,000. In 2003, the per capita debt load 

was $55,403, 15 times the state average of $3,719 (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community 

and Economic Development, Office of the State Assessor). The NSB had roughly $1.14 million per 

capita in assessed property values, as compared to the statewide average of $90,653 per capita. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

60 Final

Table 4-1. Assessed Values and General Obligation Debt, North Slope Borough, 1972-2003 

Year Population1

Full Value 

Determination2

($ millions) 

Full Value Per 

Capita 

($ millions) 

Municipal 

General 

Obligation 

Debt 

($ millions) 

Per Capita 

Debt ($) 

2003 9,402 10,714.20 1.14 520.90 55,403 

2002 9,430 10,833.81 1.15 560.51 59,439 

2001 9,355 10,506.96 1.23 573.40 61,294 

2000 9,355 10,859.45 1.16 602.55 64,409 

1999 9,389 10,931.80 1.16 725.72 77,295 

1998 9,389 11,481.68 .12 777.56 82,805 

1997 9,189 11,749.01 1.28 853.80 92,916 

1996 - - - - - 

1995 9,196 12,291.17 1.34 1,030.72 112,083 

1994 - - - - - 

1993 - - - - - 

1992 - - - - - 

1991 - - - - - 

1990 7,813 11,997.39 1.54 911.36 116,646 

1989 7,813 11,961.77 1.53 865.36 110,759 

1988 11,375 12,291.97 1.08 968.95 85,182 

1987 10,904 12,575.60 1.15 1,262.57 115,790 

1986 11,956 13,570.79 1.14 1,427.47 119,394 

1985 12,342 12,876.79 1.04 1,155.68 93,637 

1984 12,359 12,354.88 1.00 1,203.44 97,373 

1983 7,721 10,059.36 1.30 755.70 97,876 

1982 7,552 8,268.63 1.10 587.40 77,781 

1981 7,098 6,704.74 1.04 454.20 63,990 

1980 9,234 5,818.23 0.63 257.00 27,832 

1979 8,055 5,105.51 0.63 215.48 26,751 

1978 7,971 4,716.15 0.59 81.00 10,161 

1977 9,139 3,569.53 0.39 83.60 9,148 

1976 12,614 1,794.23 0.12 26.00 2,061 

1975 8,634 560.97 0.06 5.00 579 

1974 4,498 256.12 0.06 0 0 

1973 3,384 202.67 0.06 0 0 

1972 3,322 250.00 0.08 0 0 

1 The population estimate used by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic 

Development to calculate full value per capita and per capita debt includes oil and gas industry workers in 

and near Prudhoe Bay. 

2 Full Value Determination is the sum total of the full and true value established for every piece of real and 

personal property within a municipality’s boundary regardless of any optional exemption which may have 

been enacted by local ordinance. AS 29.45.110 specifies that the full and true value is the “estimated price 

that the property would bring in an open market and under the then prevailing market conditions in a sale 

between a willing seller and a willing buyer both conversant with the property and with the prevailing general 

price levels.” 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Office of the State 

Assessor.
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 61 

4.3.4 Possible Future Shortfall in Revenues 

Due to large-scale oil development on the North Slope and the small regional population, it is no 

surprise that per capita tax revenue for NSB residents is higher than in any other municipality in the 

state. Given that the NSB has access to this wealth primarily through borrowing, it should also not be 

a surprise that per capita debt service for NSB residents is higher than in other parts of the state. The 

important questions, therefore, do not relate to the magnitude of revenues or debt but rather to the 

rate of borrowing relative to the rate of growth in existing wealth. 

A critical issue related to future revenues and bonding capacity is anticipated changes in the assessed 

value of property within the Borough.32 As the assessed values are expected to decline due to capital 

depreciation of oil and gas facilities, tax revenues and bonding capacity are also expected to decline. 

As newer, more efficient types of oil and gas development are adapted and as older methods are 

phased out, the tax base for the NSB could decline even more, leading to less support for the existing 

infrastructure and decreasing the Borough’s ability to issue and sell bonds to generate funds for future 

capital improvements (National Research Council, 2003). 

Figure 4-4 shows the projected assessed value of property in the jurisdiction of the Borough through 

FY 2009 (as presented in the NSB FY 1998 budget). Figure 4-5 combines the historical property tax 

data (Figure 4-1) and projected property tax revenues to show the long downward trend in tax 

revenues. Future assessed values could in fact be higher than current projections, although such an 

increase is unlikely in the near future.33 The construction of a natural gas pipeline to the Lower 48 

would result in the creation of new processing and transportation infrastructure and thereby 

substantially enhance assessed values. Additional future revenue is contingent on the development of 

National Petroleum Reserve lands and oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If such 

development does occur, it would generate more revenues for the NSB and could become a 

significant source of income for the Borough. In short, the rate of decline in assessed values might be 

more moderate than currently expected, but there will almost certainly be a decline in tax revenues 

and bonding capacity in the near term. It is important to note that NSB investment income generated 

from surpluses in earlier decades has also declined since 2001 because of national stock market 

performance and low interest rates (ADOLWD, Alaska Economic Trends, January 2005). 

 

32 Prior to the elimination of the programs in 2004, the full value determination also played a significant role in 

determining local allocations for the Safe Communities Program and State Revenue Sharing Program. 

33 According to the North Slope Borough Mayor’s Office (2005), the revenues from any major oil and gas project 

are unlikely to significantly improve the NSB’s revenue situation until at least 2010. That is the earliest estimate 

for completion of a gas pipeline to the Lower 48 or any major developments in ANWR or NPR-A. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

62 Final

Figure 4-4. Projected Assessed Values, North Slope Borough, 1998-2009 

Source: North Slope Borough FY 1998 Budget Document. 

Figure 4-5. Actual and Projected Property Tax Revenues, North Slope Borough, 1987-2009 

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

1987 1991 1995 1998 2002 2006

Source: North Slope Borough FY 1998 Budget Document and Northern Economics, Inc. 2003. 

$0

$2,000,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$6,000,000,000

$8,000,000,000

$10,000,000,000

$12,000,000,000

$14,000,000,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 63 

There is also the question of what happens if the state places additional limits on the Borough’s use of 

its taxing authority. An answer to this question would be speculative at best, but it is worth asking; as 

noted above there have been attempts over the years to further limit debt levels and/or mill rates in 

the state. Kruse et al. (1985: 76-7) succinctly described the motive behind these attempts: 

The reasons for state-imposed limitations on North Slope Borough revenues are to be found 

in the direct tradeoff between revenues received by the North Slope Borough and revenues 

received by the State of Alaska and by other municipalities throughout the state...Limitations 

on borough revenues may be understood as attempts by residents of other areas of the state 

to limit the share of the total North Slope property “tax pie” which is taken by the North 

Slope Borough in order to obtain more for themselves. 

Most recently, Senate Bill 186, which passed the State Senate in 2000 but not the House, would have 

capped per capita debt at one-fourth the current level in the NSB. Had this bill become law, the NSB 

would have had ten years to reduce its per capita debt from more than $60,000 to $15,000. 

4.4 Trends and Issues in Community Fiscal Resources 

This section of the report presents the revenues and expenditures for individual cities on the North 

Slope. Eight distinct permanent residential communities exist in the region. Barrow is the largest 

community and is the economic, transportation, and administrative center of the region. As noted 

earlier, it is also the only one of the eight communities that is a first class municipality34. 

As discussed above, most of the cities on the North Slope transferred nearly all municipal powers to 

the NSB, including operation of basic services and facilities. Moreover, the NSB has provided directly 

or indirectly the majority of full time employment in the villages. 

The economic power of the cities on the North Slope is restricted by their limited tax base (Luton, 

1985). Although some cities in the Borough have levied a sales tax, the amount of revenue obtained 

from this tax has been relatively small.35 However, as first and second class cities, North Slope 

communities were entitled to obtain benefits from the Safe Communities Program and State Revenue 

Sharing Program, both of which were administered by the Alaska Department of Commerce, 

Community and Economic Development. 

The Safe Communities Program replaced the Municipal Assistance Program in 1997, which replaced 

the Gross Business Receipts Tax Program in 1979. Safe Communities payments varied depending 

upon how much money the State Legislature provides for the program. Funds are distributed based 

on population. The program provides financial assistance to municipalities to help fund public services 

such as police and fire protection, emergency medical services, and sanitation services. 

The State Revenue Sharing Program provided financial assistance to municipalities to help fund a 

similar array of services, including education, water and sewer, police, road maintenance, health care 

and fire protection. In 1980, the State Revenue Sharing Program was revised from the “categorical aid 

program” implemented in 1969 into a program which included two accounts from which payments 

were distributed: the Tax Equalization Account and the Municipal Services Account. The Tax 

 

34 First-class cities have six-member councils and a separately elected mayor. Taxing authority is generally 

broader than for second-class cities, as are responsibilities. Second-class cities, generally communities of less 

than 400 population, are governed by a seven-member council, one of whom serves as mayor. Taxing authority 

is limited. 

35 In accordance with state law, these local sales taxes are collected by the borough and remitted back to the 

individual city governments. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

64 Final

Equalization Account rewarded municipalities for generating revenue by distributing money on the 

basis of a formula that includes locally generated revenues, property values and population, and 

provided for a minimum entitlement for municipalities of $25,000, plus a geographic cost of living 

adjustment. The Municipal Services Account provided money to municipalities for public and ice 

road maintenance, health facilities, and hospitals. 

With respect to major capital improvements, North Slope communities have relied on projects 

financed and administered by the NSB (through its CIP) or outside funding agencies. One common 

non-local source of capital improvement funds was the Municipal Capital Matching Grants Program 

(this program was established in 1982; it was initially administered by the Alaska Department of 

Administration but later transferred to the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and 

Economic Development). This grant program helped communities with the finances to build the 

infrastructure needed to support community and business development. The cities have also received 

grants for capital improvement projects from other organizations and agencies such as the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Aviation Authority, Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation, and the Alaska Department of Transportation. Finally, some cities have 

funded large capital improvement projects with Legislative Grants, which are awarded by the State 

Legislature, with final approval by the Governor. Examples include the new municipal office building 

and community center constructed in Barrow in the mid-1980s. 

Additional sources of revenue for North Slope communities include gaming (bingo and pulltab 

operations provided by the cities) and charges for utilities and other services. In some North Slope 

communities, state-regulated gambling is a significant source of revenue. In Barrow, for example, 

bingo and pulltab operations annually provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to non-profit 

organizations in the community (Hopfinger, 2003). 

When Alaska’s oil revenues dropped as a result of a decline in the world oil price in the mid-1980s 

and a decrease in oil production on the North Slope in the 1990s, cut-backs in state government 

services and programs inevitably followed. These cutbacks impaired the overall function of city 

governments statewide. Most recently, funding for the Municipal Capital Matching Grants Program, 

Safe Communities Program and State Revenue Sharing Program was eliminated from the FY 2004 

state budget. Along with many other Alaska communities, the communities on the North Slope have 

found it difficult to deal with the withdrawal of these programs. 36

However, a major source of funding for North Slope communities has recently reappeared—the 

NPR-A Impact Mitigation Program. The U.S. Department of the Interior refunds a portion of all 

revenues from “sales, rentals, bonuses, and royalties” on oil and gas leases in the National Petroleum 

Reserve-Alaska to the state.37 Through the NPR-A Impact Mitigation Program, these funds are made 

available as grants to mitigate adverse impacts due to oil and gas developments. Federal law requires 

the state to give priority to the municipalities most affected by these developments. Thus, the NSB 

and North Slope communities are in a priority position to receive a portion of the revenues. The 

monies may be used for: 1) planning, 2) construction, maintenance, and operation of essential public 

 

36 To help weather the loss of the programs, special "one time" federal funds were provided under the "Fiscal 

Relief Program." Small communities received a minimum payment of $40,000 in FY 2004. A total of about 

$753,000 was awarded to the NSB and North Slope communities. 

37 The State of Alaska began receiving payments in 1983, and the funds were deposited in the National 

Petroleum Reserve Alaska Special Revenue Fund. In 1987, the NPR-A Impact Mitigation Program was 

established. Until the Program became inactive in 1996, projects totaling $9,780,890 were awarded to North 

Slope municipalities. In 1999 and 2002, new oil and gas lease sales were held in the NPR-A. The NPR-A 

Impact Mitigation Program was reactivated, and as of 2003, 72 projects totaling $56,381,412 have been 

awarded to North Slope municipalities. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 65 

facilities, and 3) other necessary provision of public services. Additional information on the 

distribution of funds under the NPR-A Impact Mitigation Program is provided in Chapter 6. 

The majority of city expenditures have fallen into three major categories: operating expenses, public 

services and capital projects. Operating expenses include general government expenditures for the 

salaries of city employees and city council members, along with other administrative and financial 

expenses. Public services expenditures generally include expenses on utilities, health clinic/hospital 

services, parks and recreation services, and miscellaneous public services. Historical data on city 

expenditures however do not provide detailed accounting of utility expenditures by City. 

The sections below provide brief economic profiles of each the city governments on the North Slope. 

The profiles follow a standard format to facilitate the comparison of revenue and expenditure data 

across cities. The time period covered by the profiles is 1985 through 2000, except for the Barrow 

profile which begins in 1973. No annual revenue and expenditure data were available for Point Lay 

because it is not incorporated under state law as a municipality. Because capital improvement grants 

are typically not directly paid to or administered by the city governments, revenues for capital projects 

are not included in the city fiscal data presented below38; however, a list of the capital project grants 

received by each North Slope community is provided in Appendix A39. 

4.4.1 Barrow 

Barrow was incorporated in 1958 as a fourth class city under the territorial administration (Alaska 

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). After statehood, 

Barrow became a third class city and then a first class municipality in 1974 (Smythe and Worl 1985). 

By the late 1970s, the Borough was viewed by some North Slope residents as an agency run by (and 

sometimes for) Barrow residents (Smythe and Worl, 1985). On the other hand, Barrow, more than 

any other North Slope village, has a history of speaking up and questioning the Borough’s powers. 

The issue of transfer of powers was a major factor in changing the city to a first class municipality; by 

becoming first class, the city council was able to acquire more direct control over the transfer of 

powers to the Borough (Smythe and Worl, 1985:40). The member-owned Barrow Utilities & Electric 

Cooperative operates the water and sewage treatment plants, generates and distributes electric 

power, and distributes piped natural gas for home heating (Alaska Department of Commerce, 

Community and Economic Development, 2005a). The NSB provides all other utilities and is also 

responsible for refuse collection services and road construction in the city. 

Figure 4-6 presents Barrow’s annual total revenues and expenditures from 1973 through 2000. 

 

38 Majority of the funds for capital projects are administered by the North Slope Borough. 

39 The list provided in Appendix A does not distinguish 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

66 Final

Figure 4-6. Revenues and Expenditures, City of Barrow, 1973-2000 

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Revenues Expenditures

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-7 illustrates trends in Barrow’s locally generated revenues by source; Table 4-2 presents the 

same information in a table format to provide actual dollar amounts by source per year. The largest 

source of local revenue has typically been the local sales tax levied by the city. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 67 

Figure 4-7. Local Revenues, City of Barrow, 1973-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

Local Tax

Local Tax Service Charges Bingo Enterprise Other Local

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

68 Final

Table 4-2. Local Revenues, City of Barrow, 1973-2000 

Year Local Tax Service Charges Bingo Enterprise Other Local 

1973 $84,590 $1,899 

1974 $57,211 $18,182 $909 

1975 $120,841 $20,900 $475 

1976 $183,958 $8,397 $250 

1977 $174,776 $27,288 

1978 $157,374 $0 $0 $52,083 $50,261 

1979 $149,170 $0 $0 $25,987 $65,144 

1980 $155,082 $0 $0 $23,008 $427,352 

1981 $219,623 $2,250 $0 $63,991 $191,471 

1982 $277,438 $3,166 $0 $46,673 $315,024 

1983 $305,016 $1,175 $0 $42,313 $585,451 

1984 $318,267 $1,563 $0 $31,467 $514,116 

1985 $303,779 $7,741 $0 $66,045 $408,836 

1986 $300,451 $131,434 $0 $50,075 $320,384 

1987 $258,925 $176,561 $0 $0 $1,296,840 

1988 $279,025 $27,543 $0 $266,443 $775,229 

1989 $309,954 $80,216 $0 $167,616 $396,887 

1990 $358,557 $179,723 $0 $41,544 $2,618,614 

1991 $452,973 $199,719 $0 $164,279 $618,887 

1992 $561,678 $171,646 $144,268 $0 $1,081,761 

1993 $510,654 $729,041 $78,033 $307,814 $495,929 

1994 $512,551 $149,760 $196,601 $325,037 $762,343 

1995 $506,682 $193,422 $168,171 $445,411 $533,261 

1996 $500,000 $150,412 $123,172 $376,171 $566,330 

1997 $500,000 $87,570 $205,978 $347,040 $598,090 

1998 $500,000 $256,954 $159,799 $288,040 $511,100 

1999 $500,000 $283,142 $163,420 $238,183 $307,541 

2000 $519,326 $90,927 $240,807 $316,724 $546,732 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-8 presents outside revenues by source for Barrow. It illustrates the trends in these revenue 

sources through the years; to trace actual dollar amounts per year, the same information is presented 

in Table 4-3. Revenues from both the Safe Communities Program and State Revenue Sharing 

Program showed a downward trend in the 1990s. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 69 

Figure 4-8. Non-Local Revenues, City of Barrow, 1973-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Federal Operating State Revenue Sharing State Safe Communities Other Intergovernmental

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

70 Final

Table 4-3. Non-Local Revenues, City of Barrow, 1973-2000 

Year Federal Operating State Revenue Sharing State Safe Communities Other Intergovernmental 

1973 $49,628 $8,559 

1974 $42,415 $203,030 

1975 $64,864 $208,939 

1976 $75,598 $84,064 

1977 $36,927 $23,756 

1978 $22,460 $38,553 $32,446 

1979 $99,166 $40,268 $35,378 

1980 $30,688 $45,392 $83,545 

1981 $17,534 $56,563 $424,047 

1982 $14,455 $582,132 $130,139 

1983 $42,196 $490,676 $248,608 

1984 $50,571 $527,509 $474,519 

1985 $20,476 $77,187 $200,000 $259,382 

1986 $20,906 $30,625 $421,715 $51,861 

1987 $3,621 $25,003 $328,617 $34,823 

1988 $0 $275,311 $66,265 $0 

1989 $0 $65,824 $274,774 $6,422 

1990 $0 $78,732 $254,262 $0 

1991 $0 $70,743 $269,600 $0 

1992 $23,612 $64,816 $250,081 $0 

1993 $0 $54,400 $226,611 $0 

1994 $0 $141,599 $216,815 $55,900 

1995 $7,662 $76,332 $186,781 $353,681 

1996 $0 $110,229 $169,183 $238,776 

1997 $0 $98,829 $156,179 $152,458 

1998 $0 $68,023 $148,845 $137,344 

1999 $0 $60,055 $143,589 $82,959 

2000 $0 $28,215 $95,217 $111,053 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-9 presents Barrow’s expenditures on government operations and public services from 1973 

to 2000, excluding expenditures on capital projects. The majority of Barrow’s public service 

expenditures are on parks and recreation. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 71 

Figure 4-9. Expenditures, City of Barrow, 1973-2000 

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Public Services Operating Expenses

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Table 4-4 provides information on average revenues by source for 1985 through 2000. “Other local” 

(27 percent) and local taxes (16 percent) were the two largest sources of revenue for Barrow. 

Table 4-4. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Barrow 

Source Average Revenue ($) Percent of Total 

Local Tax Revenue 429,660 16.29 

License/Permits 28,690 1.09 

Service Charges 182,238 6.91 

Bingo Revenue 92,516 3.51 

Enterprise Revenue 212,526 8.06 

Other Local Revenue 711,233 26.96 

Federal Operations Revenue 4,767 0.18 

State Revenue Sharing 82,870 3.14 

State Safe Communities 213,033 8.08 

Other State Revenue 31,951 1.21 

Other Intergovernmental Revenue 60,840 2.31 

Total All Revenues 2,637,922 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

72 Final

Table 4-5 provides information on average expenditures by category for 1985 through 2000. 

Administration and finance expenses accounted for 46 percent of all city government expenditures 

during that time period. 

Table 4-5. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Barrow 

Category Average Expenditure ($) Percent of Total 

Council Expenditures 66,082 3.4 

Administration/Finance 909,184 46.4 

Planning/Zoning 715 0.0 

Mass Transit 324 0.0 

Other Public Works 161,914 8.3 

Library/Museum 237 0.0 

Parks & Recreation 631,592 32.2 

Misc. Public Services 183,086 9.3 

Education Expenses 8,087 0.4 

Total Expenses 1,961,221 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Barrow has also benefited from various capital improvement projects funded through grants provided 

and administered by various funding agencies. Because Barrow is the administrative center for the 

Borough, some grant funding for Barrow is used for Borough-wide projects. Since 1987, Alaska 

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development has contributed $145 million for 

Barrow and NSB regular and capital matching projects. Projects have included a children/youth 

facility, mine site development, power plant design, Barrow Cultural Center, softball field and 

playground equipment, search and rescue equipment, playground and indoor/outdoor recreation, oil 

and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and public facilities operation and 

maintenance. Since 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has provided several grants 

for airport expansion and improvements totaling approximately $2.2 million. DHSS has provided 

$105,000 for an alcohol treatment center and inpatient hospital facilities upgrades. For further details 

on Barrow capital improvement projects see Appendix A. 

4.4.2 Anaktuvuk Pass 

Anaktuvuk Pass was incorporated as a second-class city in 1957. The NSB provides all public utilities 

for the City (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

Figure 4-10 presents total revenues and expenditures for Anaktuvuk Pass from 1985 through 2000. 

Total revenues spiked in the mid-1990s due, in part, to a substantial increase in gaming revenues 

following the introduction of bingo and pulltabs. Local expenditures have been relatively stable in 

comparison to revenues, except for an abrupt rise from 1998 to 1999 due to increased city operation 

and general government expenditures. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 73 

Figure 4-10. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, 1985-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Revenues Expenditures

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-11 presents locally generated revenues for Anaktuvuk Pass by source. The two largest sources 

of local revenue have been bingo operations and “other local.” “Other local” revenues include pulltab 

revenues. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

74 Final

Figure 4-11. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, 1985-2000 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Local Tax Service Charges Bingo Other Local

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

The State Revenue Sharing Program was a fairly consistent source of outside revenues for Anaktuvuk 

Pass during the 1985-2000 period (Figure 4-12). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 75 

Figure 4-12. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, 1985-2000 

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Federal Operating State Revenue Sharing State Safe Communities Other Intergovernmental

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development , 2003. 

Local expenditures by source are presented in Figure 4-13. The largest expenditures of Anaktuvuk 

Pass have been for general government operations.. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

76 Final

Figure 4-13. Annual Local Expenditures by Category, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, 1985-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Public Services Operating Expenses

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Table 4-6 provides information on average revenues by source for 1985 through 2000. “Other local” 

was the primary source of revenues, followed by the State Revenue Sharing Program.

Table 4-6. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Anaktuvuk Pass 

Source Average Revenue ($) Percent of Total 

Local Tax Revenue 1,167 0.8 

Service Charges 8,963 6.3 

Bingo Revenue 13,478 9.5 

Other Local Revenue 38,156 26.8 

State Revenue Sharing 32,673 23.0 

State Safe Communities 20,708 14.6 

Other State Revenue 11,244 7.9 

Other Intergovernmental Revenue 15,784 11.1 

Total Revenue 142,172 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Table 4-7 provides information on average expenditures by category for 1985 through 2000. 

Administration and finance expenses accounted for 70 percent of all city government expenditures 

during that time period. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 77 

Table 4-7. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Anaktuvuk Pass 

Category Average Expenditure ($) Percentage of Total 

Council Expenditures 29,803 19.5 

Administration/Finance 107,113 70.2 

Other General Government 6,391 4.2 

Electric Utility 624 0.4 

Phone Utility 477 0.3 

Water/Sewer 236 0.2 

Parks & Recreation 3,557 2.3 

Misc. Public Services 4,318 2.8 

Average Total Expense 152,519 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Anaktuvuk Pass has also benefited from various capital improvement projects funded through grants 

provided and administered by various funding agencies. Since 1991, the DCCED has contributed an 

average of $116,492 annually for capital projects. This figure includes $381,264 in 1992 for a road 

and airport safety project, as well as several capital matching grants of $25,000 for such things as bed 

and breakfast construction, community hall upgrades and a multi-purpose building. The DCCED also 

provided a $300,000 landfill construction grant in 1987, a water and sewer system construction grant 

of $750,000 in 1995, and another water and sewer system grant of $1 million to continue 

construction in 1998. In 1996, a $17 million capital project to provide piped water and sewer and 

household plumbing was funded by the Municipal Grants and Loans Division of the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation. Since 1993, HUD has provided Anaktuvuk Pass 

$690,203 in Indian Housing Block Grants and $654,319 for housing modernization projects. For 

further details on Anaktuvuk Pass capital improvement projects see Appendix A. 

4.4.3 Atqasuk 

The City of Atqasuk was established in 1977, primarily by former residents of Barrow. The city was 

incorporated in 1982. The Atqasuk Corporation provides water, sewer and refuse services in the 

village (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

Figure 4-14 presents Atqasuk’s total revenues and expenditures from 1985 through 2000. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

78 Final

Figure 4-14. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Atqasuk, 1985-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Revenue Expenditure

Note: Both revenues and expenditures were reported to be zero in 1986. This is likely attributable to data 

collection error. 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-15 presents Atqasuk’s local revenues by source. The largest sources of local revenue have 

been bingo operations and enterprises. Enterprise revenue includes gaming revenue from pulltabs. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 79 

Figure 4-15. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Atqasuk, 1985-2000 

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Local Tax Service Charges Bingo Enterprise Other Local

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

The Safe Communities Program and State Revenue Sharing Program were a fairly consistent source of 

outside revenues for Atqasuk during the 1985-2000 period (Figure 4-12). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

80 Final

Figure 4-16. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Atqasuk, 1985-2000 

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

$200,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Federal Operating State Revenue Sharing State Safe Communities Other Intergovernmental

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-17 presents Atqasuk’s annual expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by category. The largest 

expenditures of Atqasuk have typically been for general government operations. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 81 

Figure 4-17. Annual Expenditures by Category, City of Atqasuk, 1985-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Public Services Operating Expenses

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Table 4-8 provides information on average revenues by source for 1985 through 2000. Bingo 

operations and the State Revenue Sharing Program were the primary sources of revenues. 

Table 4-8. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Atqasuk 

Source Average Revenue ($) Percent of Total 

Local Tax Revenue 833 0.4 

Service Charges 10,506 5.5 

Bingo Revenue 36,489 19.0 

Enterprise Revenue 18,096 9.4 

Other Local Revenue 11,998 6.2 

Federal Operations Revenue 29,192 15.2 

State Revenue Sharing 35,675 18.6 

State Safe Communities 27,314 14.2 

Other State Revenue 10,208 5.3 

Other Intergovernmental Revenue 11,872 6.2 

Total Revenue 192,183 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003.

Table 4-9 provides information on average expenditures by category for 1985 through 2000. 

Administration and finance expenses accounted for 73 percent of all city government expenditures 

during that time period. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

82 Final

Table 4-9. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 Category, City of Atqasuk 

Category Average Expenditure ($) Percent of Total 

Council Expenditures 7,100 5.7 

Administration/Finance 91,673 73.3 

Other General Government 17,075 13.7 

Electric Utility 624 0.5 

Phone Utility 477 0.4 

Water/Sewer 236 0.2 

Parks & Recreation 3,557 2.8 

Misc. Public Services 4,318 3.5 

Total Expenses 125,060 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Atqasuk has also benefited from various capital improvement projects funded through grants provided 

and administered by various funding agencies. From 1990 through 2000, DCCED provided an 

average of $91,816 annually. Projects and expenditures have included $60,000 for a new trash 

collection truck, $90,000 for community center maintenance and operation, and $181,953 capital 

matching funds for community projects and improvements. HUD provided an average of $69,000 per 

year during the 1993-2002 period on projects such as housing modernization and Indian Housing 

Block Grants. For further details on Atqasuk capital improvement projects see Appendix A. 

4.4.4 Kaktovik 

Kaktovik was incorporated in 1971. The NSB provides all public utilities for the City (Alaska 

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

Figure 4-18 presents the City of Kaktovik’s total revenues and expenditures from 1985 through 2000. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 83 

Figure 4-18. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Kaktovik, 1985-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Revenue Expenditure

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-19 presents locally generated revenues for Kaktovik by source. The two largest sources of 

local revenue have been bingo operations and “other local.” “Other local” revenues include revenue 

from interest earnings, sale of assets, capital equipment and donations. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

84 Final

Figure 4-19. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Kaktovik, 1985-2000 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Local Tax Service Charges Bingo Enterprise Other Local

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

The State Revenue Sharing Program was a fairly consistent source of outside revenues for Kaktovik 

during the 1985-2000 period (Figure 4-20). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 85 

Figure 4-20. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Kaktovik, 1985-2000 

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Federal Operating State Revenue Sharing State Safe Communities Other Intergovernmental

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-21 presents Kaktovik’s expenditures from 1985 to 2000. The largest expenditures of the city 

have typically been for general government operations. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

86 Final

Figure 4-21. Annual Expenditures by Category, City of Kaktovik, 1985-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Public Services Operating Expenses

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Table 4-10 provides information on average revenues by source for 1985 through 2000. “Other local” 

was the primary source of revenues. 

Table 4-10. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Kaktovik 

Source of Revenue Average Revenue ($) Percent of Total 

Service Charges 15,062 4.7 

Bingo Revenue 58,176 18.3 

Enterprise Revenue 26,431 8.3 

Other Local Revenue 102,830 32.4 

Federal Operations Revenue 208 0.1 

State Revenue Sharing 50,124 15.8 

State Safe Communities 15,639 4.9 

Other State Revenue 11,086 3.5 

Other Intergovernmental Revenue 37,955 12.0 

Total Revenues 317,511 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Table 4-11 provides information on average expenditures by category for 1985 through 2000. 

Administration and finance expenses accounted for 46 percent of all city government expenditures 

during that time period. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 87 

Table 4-11. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Kaktovik 

Category Average Expenditure ($) Percent of Total 

Council Expenditures 47,550 16.7 

Administration/Finance 132,683 46.5 

Planning/Zoning 1,695 0.6 

Other General Government 7,003 2.5 

Other Public Works 15,320 5.4 

Library/Museum 37 0.0 

Parks & Recreation 50,707 17.8 

Misc. Public Services 30,563 10.7 

Total Expenditures 285,557 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Kaktovik has also benefited from various capital improvement projects funded through grants 

provided and administered by various funding agencies. From 1992 to 2003, DCCED provided 

Kaktovik approximately $580,000 in grants or an average of $48,333 annually for a variety of projects 

such as safety facility upgrades, visitor center, and capital matching projects. Capital matching projects 

include utility vehicle purchase, community facility upgrades, summer campground for children, 

community building upgrades, boat dock construction, and playground construction. HUD has also 

provided several grants to the City of Kaktovik. From 1993-2002, HUD provided over $1 million in 

assistance for housing modernization projects and Indian Housing Block Grants. Other notable 

contributions to Kaktovik include a $500,000 grant from DEC in 1988 for a sewage disposal system, 

and a $450,000 grant from BIA in 2001 for community road upgrades. For further details on Kaktovik 

capital improvement projects see Appendix A. 

4.4.5 Nuiqsut 

The old village of Nuiqsut (Itqilippaa) was abandoned in the late 1940s because of the absence of a 

local school (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

The village was resettled in 1973 by 27 families that moved to Nuiqsut from Barrow. A school, 

housing and other facilities were constructed by federal agencies in 1973 and 1974. Nuiqsut was 

incorporated as a second class city in 1975. The NSB provides all public utilities in Nuiqsut (Alaska 

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

Figure 4-22 presents the City of Nuiqsut’s total revenues and expenditures from 1985 through 2000. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

88 Final

Figure 4-22. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Nuiqsut, 1985-1998 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Revenues Expenditures

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-23 presents locally generated revenues by source for Nuiqsut for the period 1985 to 1999. 

The two largest sources of local revenue have been enterprises and “other local.” “Other local” 

revenue sources include office rentals, community hall rental, local business licenses, service charges 

(cable hook-up), and land sales. Enterprise revenue includes gaming revenue from pulltabs. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 89 

Figure 4-23. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Nuiqsut, 1985 to 1999 

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Local Tax Service Charges Bingo Enterprise Other Local

Note: Data for local revenues were unavailable for 1997. 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

The State Revenue Sharing Program was a fairly consistent source of outside revenues for Nuiqust 

during the 1985-1998 period (Figure 4-24). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

90 Final

Figure 4-24. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Nuiqsut, 1985 to 1999. 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Federal Operating State Revenue Sharing State Safe Communities Other Intergovernmental

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Local expenditures by source are presented in Figure 4-25. The largest expenditures of Nuiqsut have 

typically been for general government operations. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 91 

Figure 4-25. Expenditures by Category, City of Nuiqsut, 1985-1998 

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Public Services Operating Expenses

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Table 4-12 provides information on average revenues by source for 1985 through 2000. Enterprises 

were the primary source of revenues.

Table 4-12. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Nuiqsut 

Source Average Revenue Percent of Total 

Local Tax Revenue 12,603 6.1 

License/Permits 83 0.0 

Service Charges 14,614 7.0 

Enterprise Revenue 47,148 22.7 

Other Local Revenue 34,033 16.4 

Federal Operations Revenue 17,225 8.3 

State Revenue Sharing 30,125 14.5 

State Safe Communities 22,933 11.0 

Other State Revenue 28,221 13.6 

Other Intergovernmental Revenue 750 0.4 

Total Revenues 207,735 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

92 Final

Table 4-13 provides information on average expenditures by category for 1985 through 2000. 

Administration and finance expenses accounted for 61 percent of all city government expenditures 

during that time period. 

Table 4-13. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 1998 by Category, City of Nuiqsut 

Source Average Expenditure Percent of Total 

Council Expenditures $18,068 8.4 

Administration/Finance $131,058 60.8 

Other General Government $8,635 4.0 

Fire $188 0.1 

Other Public Safety $0 0.0 

Icy Roads $1,488 0.7 

Harbor Dock $3,319 1.5 

Other Public Works $4,357 2.0 

Parks & Recreation $46,698 21.7 

Misc. Public Services $1,797 0.8 

Total Expenses $215,606 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Nuiqsut has also benefited from various capital improvement projects funded through grants provided 

and administered by various funding agencies. Since 1993, DCCED has contributed a total of $11.8 

million or an average of about $1 million annually. Projects administered by DCCED included several 

city operations and maintenance funding grants, day care, natural gas distribution, natural gas 

conversion, graveyard fencing, city hall expansion, and capital matching projects. Capital matching 

projects include ball field and park development, youth center renovation, and various community 

projects and improvements. HUD has also provided several grants to Nuiqsut. From 1993 to 2002, 

HUD provided a total of $1,282,728 for various housing modernization projects and Indian Housing 

Block Grants. Other significant contributors to Nuiqsut’s capital projects include a 1987 grant from 

DEC for $250,000 for a sewage disposal lagoon. The FAA contributed approximately $2.06 million for 

the construction of a runway safety area for the airport and $1 million in 2002 for an airport apron 

expansion. For further details on Nuiqsut capital improvement projects see Appendix A. 

4.4.6 Point Hope 

Point Hope was incorporated in 1966. The NSB provides all public utilities in Point Hope (Alaska 

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

Figure 4-26 presents the City of Point Hope’s total revenues and expenditures from 1985 through 

2000. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 93 

Figure 4-26. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Point Hope, 1985-2000 

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Revenue Expenditure

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-27 presents Point Hope local revenues by source. Enterprises and “other local” have been 

two major sources of local revenues, although neither has been a consistent source of revenue. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

94 Final

Figure 4-27. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Point Hope, 1985-2000 

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Local Tax Service Charges Bingo Enterprise Other Local

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

The Safe Communities Program and State Revenue Sharing Program were a fairly consistent source of 

outside revenues for Point Hope in the 1985-2000 period (Figure 4-28). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 95 

Figure 4-28. Annual Non-local Revenues, City of Point Hope, 1985-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Federal Operating State Revenue Sharing State Safe Communities Other Intergovernmental

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Local expenditures by source are presented in Figure 4-29. The largest expenditures of Point Hope 

have typically been for general government operations. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

96 Final

Figure 4-29. Annual Expenditures by Category, City of Point Hope, 1985-2000 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Public Services Operating Expenses

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Table 4-14 provides information on average revenues by source for 1985 through 2000. Enterprises 

were the largest source of revenues. 

Table 4-14. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Point Hope 

Source Average Revenue Percent of Total 

Local Tax Revenue $8,981 2.4 

License/Permits $224 0.1 

Service Charges $45,249 11.9 

Bingo Revenue $6,051 1.6 

Enterprise Revenue $73,917 19.5 

Other Local Revenue $59,189 15.6 

Federal Operations Revenue $6,829 1.8 

State Revenue Sharing $33,976 8.9 

State Safe Communities $46,642 12.3 

Other State Revenue $40,112 10.6 

Other Intergovernmental Revenue $58,594 15.4 

Total All Revenues $379,762 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 97 

Table 4-15 provides information on average expenditures by category for 1985 through 2000. 

Administration and finance expenses accounted for 39 percent of all city government expenditures 

during that time period. 

Table 4-15. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Point Hope 

Category Average Expenditure Percent of Total 

Council Expenditures $70,332 17.3 

Administration/Finance $157,992 38.9 

Other General Government $14,514 3.6 

Other Public Safety $414 0.1 

Harbor Dock $418 0.1 

Other Public Works $5,077 1.2 

Health Clinic/Hospital $7,613 1.9 

Parks & Recreation $69,918 17.2 

Misc. Public Services $79,795 19.6 

Education Expenses $453 0.1 

Total Expenses $406,525 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Point Hope has also benefited from various capital improvement projects funded through grants 

provided and administered by various funding agencies. Since 1993, DCCED has contributed 

$435,623 or $39,602 per year in grants for capital projects to Point Hope. Projects have included a 

senior center expansion, a mini-grant for a Native American arts and crafts start-up, and various 

capital matching grants. The capital matching grants have been for projects such as city office upgrade 

and equipment, city garage building construction, day-care mini van, and community facilities 

renovation and equipment. HUD has also provided several grants. From 1993 to 2003, HUD total 

expenditures on projects amounted to about $3 million or $265,786 per year. Projects administered 

by HUD include various housing modernization projects and Indian Housing Block Grants (DCCED, 

2003). Other significant contributions include DOT grants totaling $402,476 on various projects to 

improve the Point Hope airport, and an FAA contribution of $932,156 for the construction of the 

airport snow removal equipment building. For further details on Point Hope capital improvement 

projects see Appendix A. 

4.4.7 Point Lay 

In Point Lay, the only unincorporated community on the North Slope, the IRA tribal council acts as 

the city government (Chapter 6 provides a detailed description of tribal governments). Because Point 

Lay is not incorporated under state law as a municipality it is not required to report its annual 

revenues and expenditures to the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic 

Development. Consequently, revenue and expenditure information is unavailable for this analysis. 

Point Lay has benefited from various capital improvement projects funded through grants provided 

and administered by various funding agencies. For example, since 1998, HUD has provided an 

average of $111,254 per year for Indian Housing Block Grants. The FAA contributed $108,280 in 

1997 to assist with the development of the Airport Master Plan. In 1994, DCCED provided $100,000 

in assistance for community facilities renovations. For further details on Point Lay capital improvement 

projects see Appendix A. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

98 Final

4.4.8 Wainwright 

Wainwright was incorporated in 1962. The NSB provides all public utilities in Wainwright (Alaska 

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

Figure 4-30 presents the City of Wainwright’s total revenues and expenditures from 1985 through 

2000. 

Figure 4-30. Annual Revenues and Expenditures, City of Wainwright, 1985-2000 

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Revenue Expenditure

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-31 presents locally generated revenues by source for Wainwright for the period 1985 to 

1999. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 99 

Figure 4-31. Annual Local Revenues by Source, City of Wainwright, 1985-2000 

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Local Tax Service Charges Bingo Enterprise Other Local

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Figure 4-32 presents Wainwright’s outside revenues by source. The State Revenue Sharing Program 

was a relatively consistent source of outside revenues for the city during the 1985-2000 period. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

100 Final

Figure 4-32. Annual Non-Local Revenues by Source, City of Wainwright, 1985-2000 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Federal Operating State Revenue Sharing State Safe Communities Other Intergovernmental

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Local expenditures by source are presented in Figure 4-33. The largest expenditures of Wainwright 

have typically been for general government operations. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 101 

Figure 4-33. Annual Expenditures by Category, City of Wainwright, 1985-2000 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

Table 4-16 provides information on average revenues by source for 1985 through 2000. Enterprises 

were the largest source of revenues. 

Table 4-16. Average Annual Revenues from 1985 to 2000 by Source, City of Wainwright 

Source Average Revenue Percent of Total 

Local Tax Revenue $10,155 2.9 

License/Permits $226 0.1 

Service Charges $46,220 13.4 

Bingo Revenue $6,051 1.7 

Enterprise Revenue $74,214 21.5 

Other Local Revenue $60,276 17.4 

Federal Operations Revenue $17,872 5.2 

State Revenue Sharing $35,938 10.4 

State Safe Communities $26,699 7.7 

Other State Revenue $55,952 16.2 

Other Intergovernmental Revenue $12,270 3.5 

Total All Revenues $345,872 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003. 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Public Services Operating Expenses
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

102 Final

Table 4-17 provides information on average expenditures by category for 1985 through 2000. Parks 

and recreation and miscellaneous public services accounted for most city government expenditures 

during that time period. 

Table 4-17. Average Annual Expenditures from 1985 to 2000 by Category, City of Wainwright 

Category Average Expenditure Percent of Total 

Council Expenditures $33,781 2.3 

Administration/Finance $226,887 15.5 

Other General Government $17,861 1.2 

Ambulance $1,856 0.1 

Other Public Safety $3,180 0.2 

Other Public Works $59,451 4.0 

Library/Museum $93,071 6.3 

Parks & Recreation $564,630 38.5 

Misc. Public Services $467,409 31.8 

Total Expenses $1,468,126 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2003.

Wainwright has also benefited from various capital improvement projects funded through grants 

provided and administered by various funding agencies. DCCED has provided a total of $1,094,833 

or an average of $78,202 per year since 1989 for grants and capital sharing projects that include selfservice laundry relocation, garbage truck purchase, search and rescue equipment, community center 

renovations, city hall renovations, local government operations, and boat dock design. HUD has 

provided $2,405,769 in grants for Wainwright since 1993. These grants include funding for housing 

modernization projects and Indian Housing Block Grants. Other contributions include a USDA grant 

of $1,375,000 for self-service laundry improvements and $440,000 for water and sewer construction. 

DEC contributed $880,000 for community piped water and sewage services. For further details on 

Wainwright capital improvement projects see Appendix A. 
Final 103 

5 The Role of For-Profit Alaska Native Corporations 

This chapter describes the role of for-profit Alaska Native corporations in the economy of the North 

Slope. The chapter begins with a description of ANCSA—the Act that authorized the formation of 

Alaska Native regional and village corporations and was the source of the assets that initially funded 

the corporations. The discussion of ANCSA is followed by a brief history and analysis of ASRC, 

including its corporate structure, revenues, dividends, employment, educational contributions, and 

other contributions. The chapter concludes with information on the for-profit Alaska Native village 

corporations on the North Slope. 

5.1 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

ANCSA was a landmark piece of legislation that introduced the corporate model into a predominantly 

subsistence society. The purpose of ANCSA was to legislate the terms by which Alaska Natives could 

acquire title to their lands. With passage of ANCSA, Alaska Natives received fee simple title to 44 

million acres of land and $965.2 million in cash for extinguishment of all aboriginal title or claims of 

title to lands. ANCSA significantly changed the relationship of Alaska Natives to their land because ties 

to traditional Indian Reorganization Act “tribal” governments were bypassed. ANCSA was intended to 

resolve land claims and to be a development tool encouraging economic sovereignty in the form of 

land and money to Alaska Native business corporations. 

The monetary settlement of $962.5 million was to be distributed over an eleven-year period. The 

federal government provided $462.5 million while the remaining $500 million of the settlement came 

from a two percent royalty on production and two percent on bonuses and rentals for lands in Alaska 

conveyed to the state under the Statehood Act and from the remaining federal lands in Alaska 

excluding the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (later renamed the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska). 

These funds provided the initial source of capital for the regional and village corporations. 

ANCSA (43 U.S.C. § 1606) designated 12 Native regions in the state based, where possible, on 

common heritage and interests. These regions were to approximate the areas covered by the 

operations of existing Native associations including the Arctic Slope Native Association. Each area was 

to be managed by a regional corporation. The 12 regional corporations were formed as businesses for 

profit. A 13th corporation was formed later to provide for Alaska Natives living out of the state. By 

ANCSA terms, Alaska Natives were obliged to set up corporations to serve as the vehicles for the 

ownership and management of their land and the money, which became corporate assets. 

The 12 regional corporations were allowed to take title to the subsurface rights of village corporation 

lands and surface and subsurface rights to an additional 16 million acres to be selected by regional 

Alaska Native corporations (Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1984). The 13th corporation 

received a cash settlement but no land. ASRC is the regional for-profit corporation for the North 

Slope. The boundary of ASRC is for all practical purposes coterminous with the boundary of the NSB 

(Dupere and Associates, 1973). ASRC was designated to receive about 4.6 million acres and $22.5 

million from which each of the region’s village corporations were to receive a portion. 

In order to be eligible to select land or receive benefits, Alaska Native villages had to incorporate in a 

manner similar to the regional corporations. ANCSA called for qualifying inhabitants of 234 Native 

villages in Alaska to be organized as for-profit or non-profit village corporations to take title to the 

surface rights of 22 million acres. While ANCSA gave villages the option of incorporating as a profitmaking or a non-profit-making corporation, they were advised that, under Alaska law, that there 

could be no distribution of dividends to members of a non-profit corporation. All of the villages in 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

104 Final

Alaska chose to establish profit-making corporations, as encouraged by the parameters of ANCSA. A 

village corporation represented a Native community for ANCSA purposes and was defined as a place 

where 25 or more Alaska Natives lived at the time of the 1970 census. Today, there are eight certified 

ANCSA village corporations in the NSB (Table 5-1). ASRC had to fight for eligibility for three of them: 

Atqasuk, Nuiqsut, and Point Lay (ASRC, 2001). The village corporations administer their lands and 

manage their portion of the ANCSA monetary settlement. All village corporations on the North Slope 

chose for-profit status. 

Table 5-1. Villages and Village Corporations on the North Slope 

Village Village Corporation 

Anaktuvuk Pass Nunamiut Corporation 

Atqasuk Atqasuk Corporation 

Barrow Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation 

Kaktovik Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation 

Nuiqsut Kuukpik Corporation 

Point Hope Tikigaq Corporation (formerly Tigara) 

Point Lay Cully Corporation 

Wainwright Olgoonik Corporation 

While ANCSA designated the amount of land entitlement in terms of acreage, the burden of 

translating that entitlement into meaningful economic assets was borne by the newly formed regional 

and village corporations. The overriding question for ASRC and the village corporations was whether 

land choices would meet the needs of both current and future generations. The land selection process 

had to balance traditional subsistence values, cultural, and historical significance with the need to 

identify lands with the most potential for resource extraction including oil, gas, coal, and other 

minerals. 

Land selection was a lengthy, expensive, and litigious process. Land selection for ASRC was limited by 

pre-existing state and federal land withdrawals including land in the National Petroleum Reserve–

Alaska (NPR–A) and the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. Under ANCSA P.L. 92-203, Section 12(a) and 12(b), 

the village corporations in Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Wainwright were allowed to select surface 

rights to land in the NPR-A (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1996). 

The provisions of ANCSA did not allow ASRC to select any subsurface lands within the NPR-A. 

Instead, ASRC was allowed to select the subsurface estate in equal acreage to their entitlement from 

lands outside the withdrawal. However, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

(ANILCA), (P.L. 96-487) provided specific legislative authority allowing the exchange of NPR-A lands 

contingent upon legislative direction to open the NPR-A to commercial development. This section of 

ANILCA could not be implemented until passage of the Appropriations Act of 1981 (P.L. 96-514), 

which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to lease lands within the NPR-A for oil and gas 

exploration and development. 

Therefore, ASRC was allowed to select the subsurface estate of village-selected lands if the lands 

within 75 miles of the villages were made available for commercial development. ASRC selected lands 

under the villages of Nuiqsut and Wainwright. ASRC will receive all the subsurface estate of all lands 

conveyed to Nuiqsut when its entitlement is complete (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1998). 

ASRC will receive the subsurface estate to 122,176 acres in Wainwright (U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, 1998). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 105 

ASRC lands also include the subsurface estate to 92,160 acres of land within the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge coastal plain. The ASRC-owned ANWR subsurface estate lies under and adjacent to 

Kaktovik. Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation holds the surface title to these same lands. 

ASRC has received all but about 250,000 acres of its entitlement under ANCSA. ASRC is particularly 

interested in participating in land exchanges with the federal government for lands in the NPR-A 

(ASRC, 2003a). Many of its shareholders have Native allotments and cabin sites in the area. The 

Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of Interior manages the NPR-A for the federal 

government. The NPR-A covers a significant portion of the North Slope region (Figure 6-6). Native 

entities own property located around the villages of Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Wainwright (U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, 1996). 

ASRC lands also hold significant amounts of high quality bituminous coal. It is estimated that 

approximately two billion tons of coal are located in the Western Arctic. ASRC has targeted one coal 

deposit located about six miles from tidewater on the Chukchi Sea for development. Approximately 

68 million tons of measured coal reserves have been identified there for underground mining and 

another approximately 23 million tons of coal have been identified as suitable for surface mining. 

5.2 Alaska Native Corporations Legal Structure 

ANCSA and its amendments created a legal structure for Alaska Native corporations with some unique 

attributes. Regional and village Native corporations are vehicles used to channel Native assets and 

capital toward productive investments on behalf of their shareholders. Each regional corporation is 

incorporated under state law as a state-chartered, for-profit enterprise. As such they are required by 

law to make a good faith effort at earning a financial return for their Native shareholders by investing 

in Native and non-Native enterprises or through the exploitation of regionally-held natural resources. 

Vic Fischer, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, pointed out: 

...an ANCSA corporation has a much more difficult path in life in the business world than a 

private corporation that is purely profit-motivated. Unlike most private companies, Native 

corporations put an emphasis on hiring their shareholders, providing for the educational 

needs of shareholders and their children, and they are involved in political and social issues 

(Thompson, 2000). 

In some ways the Alaska Native corporations are called upon to fulfill what can be competing 

objectives—attend to the bottom line of the corporation but at the same provide jobs and training for 

shareholders. ASRC publications articulate the importance of incorporating traditional Iñupiat values, 

such as protecting the land, environment, and culture, into its operations. However, corporation 

shareholders also expect to receive dividends. 

The legal structure determined by ANCSA ties the regional corporations together. For example, 

according to ANCSA, Section 7 (i), 70 percent of all revenues earned by each regional corporation 

from timber resources and the subsurface estate patented have to be divided on an annual basis 

among all 12 corporations.40 In the case of the Alpine oil field, which began production in 2000, the 

 

40 (43 U.S.C. § 1606) 7(i) Certain natural resource revenues; distribution among twelve Regional Corporations; 

computation of amount; subsection inapplicable to thirteenth Regional Corporation (1)(A) Except as provided by 

subparagraph (B), 70 percent of all revenues received by each Regional Corporation from the timber resources 

and subsurface estate patented to it pursuant to this chapter shall be divided annually by the Regional 

Corporation among all twelve Regional Corporations organized pursuant to this section according to the number 

of Natives enrolled in each region pursuant to section 1604 of this title. The provisions of this subsection shall not 

apply to the thirteenth Regional Corporation if organized pursuant to subsection (c) hereof.
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

106 Final

amount of revenue distributed to the regional corporations is significant. For example, in 2001 ASRC’s 

royalty-sharing payments to other Alaska Native corporations amounted to $20 million (Bradner, 

2001). 

Non-shared revenue can also be generated through various types of business development activities, 

including wholly owned enterprises, partnerships, or joint ventures, purchases of buildings and other 

real estate, and returns on passive investments in stocks and other financial instruments. 

Initially, each Alaska Native enrolled in a corporation received 100 shares of the corporation’s stock.41

Unlike most corporations, the “stock may not be sold, pledged, assigned, or otherwise alienated 

except in certain circumstances by gift, court decree or death” (ASRC, 2001). Stock and land received 

by the corporations were originally protected for 20 years after ANCSA’s passage in 1971. Congress 

assumed that the corporations would be viable, profitable entities after 20 years of operation. 

However, Alaska Natives were concerned that once stock ownership restrictions were lifted, the 

majority of stock in Native corporations could fall into non-Native hands. While ANCSA has been 

amended many times, amendments to deal with what was called the “1991 problem” were passed by 

Congress in 1987 and signed into law by President Reagan on February 3, 1988. These amendments 

have had implications for ASRC and the village corporations on the North Slope, including: 

 Allowing corporate shareholders to determine if and when to lift restrictions on the sale of their 

ANCSA stock; 

 Allowing shareholders to issue new stock to Native children born after 1971, elders, and those 

Natives who missed the original enrollment; 

 Protecting undeveloped Native land from loss due to debt, bankruptcy, judgment, or squatter’s 

rights because they automatically are protected in a land bank; and 

 Exempting all undeveloped Native land from taxation. 

Because of this legislation, ASRC’s alienation restrictions remain in place. Furthermore, the stock 

carries voting rights only if the stock holder is an eligible Alaska Native or a descendant of a Native. 

The issue of Alaska Natives born after 1971 creates a dilemma for Native corporations because of the 

conflict between the desire to share with the younger generations against the desire to pay higher 

dividends to current stockholders. ASRC is one of three regional Native corporations that have added 

individuals born after 1971 to their rolls. This change in enrollment policy in 1989 has had a 

significant effect on the economy of the North Slope, by increasing the number of shareholders in 

ASRC from around 3,800 in 1972 to almost 9,000. Dividends, employment, and education and 

training benefits have been extended to a much larger group than originally enrolled in ASRC. ASRC 

has been able to increase profits so that dividends paid on an individual basis to shareholders have 

not declined drastically. However, if the rolls had not been extended, shareholders may have 

received higher individual dividend payments. 

Initially under ANCSA, all Native corporation lands were protected from taxation for 20 years from 

the time of conveyance. The new amendments extended the protection against taxation of 

undeveloped corporate land indefinitely. In addition, with some exceptions, the new amendments 

prevent takeovers on undeveloped (not mortgaged) lands because of corporate debts or bankruptcy. 

Legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress in 1986 also distinguished Alaska Native regional 

corporations from other corporations. Net operating losses (NOLs) are a loss of taxable income as 

 

41 “Native” was defined as a citizen of the United States with one-fourth degree or more Indian, Aleut or Eskimo 

ancestry, born on or before December 18, 1971, including Natives who had been adopted by one or more nonNative parents. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 107 

recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Before 1986, all corporations that lost money on business 

ventures were allowed to sell their NOLs to other corporations looking for tax write-offs. The practice 

was stopped in 1986 because so much money was being lost to the federal treasury. 

However, a technical amendment in the 1986 Tax Reform Act (P.L. 99-514) allowed Alaska Native 

corporations to continue to sell NOLs to profitable corporations, which in turn used the losses to 

reduce their taxes through write-offs. NOL sales essentially recapitalized several of the Alaska Native 

Regional corporations and put them in a good position to benefit from the economic boom that 

began in the 1990s (Colt, 2001). ASRC was one of the regional corporations that took advantage of 

this opportunity and by 2001, it had netted $91 million (Stricker, 2001). 

The next sections describe some additional linkages between Alaska Native corporations and the 

North Slope oil industry, some of the competitive advantages of Alaska Native corporations, and the 

business structure and operations of ASRC including revenues, dividends, and employment. 

5.3 Linkages between Alaska Native Corporations and the North Slope Oil 

Industry 

ASRC has leased lands to major oil companies over the years, and several exploratory wells have been 

drilled on these lands. However, until the Alpine oil field in the Colville River Delta was developed, 

no oil development occurred on ASRC lands. According to ASRC (2003), approximately 50 percent of 

the Alpine oil field is on land leased from ASRC. The Kuukpik Corporation holds title to the surface 

estate. ASRC played a prominent role in the development of the Alpine oil field. Much of the 

engineering was completed by a joint venture between ASRC and Parsons Engineering. Modules used 

in the field were constructed by a subsidiary of Natchiq, Alaska Petroleum Contractors. The pipeline 

connecting Alpine to the Kuparuk River infrastructure was constructed by another subsidiary, Houston 

Contracting Company. Nuiqsut Construction, a joint venture between SKW Eskimos, Inc., an ARSC 

subsidiary, and the Kuukpik Corporation carried out civil construction for the development of the 

Alpine field. 

An agreement between ASRC and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation gives Anadarko exploratory 

access to 3.3 million acres of land controlled by ASRC and exploration rights to 2.3 million acres. In 

addition, ASRC and the Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation own 92,000 subsurface and 92,000 surface 

acres, respectively, in ANWR. Chevron Texaco and BP currently hold leases to all of the 

ASRC/Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation land in the Refuge (ASRC, 2003). While these lands have been 

identified as having oil and gas potential, they cannot be developed unless Congress opens the rest of 

the coastal plain to oil and gas leasing and related activities. 

ANWR is the most northern and one of the largest wildlife refuges in the United States, and is 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The original 8.9 million acre Arctic National Wildlife 

Range was created in 1960 by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to “preserve the unique 

wildlife, wilderness, and recreation values” of the area. Under ANILCA, the range was doubled in size 

to 19.6 million acres to include the wintering grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd and renamed 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Most of the original range was designated as wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

Approximately eight million acres of the current wildlife refuge are designated as wilderness. 

However, the 1.5 millions acre coastal plain is not designated as wilderness, and under ANILCA this 

area of ANWR is referred to as the “1002 Area.” Section 1002 of ANILCA directed the Department of 

the Interior to prepare a report on oil and gas potential in the coastal plain and to identify the effects 

that oil development would have on the area’s natural values. Section 1003 of ANILCA stated that 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

108 Final

any oil and gas leasing or production anywhere in ANWR would require authorization by an act of 

the U.S. Congress. 

A land exchange was completed in 1983 transferring the subsurface title of Kaktovik Iñupiat 

Corporation lands within ANWR from the federal government to ASRC. This allowed for an 

exploratory well to be drilled by industry in 1985 within the Refuge’s boundary on these private 

lands. The results of the drilling operations remain confidential (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). 

5.4 Competitive Advantages of Alaska Native Corporations 

Several federal programs provide Alaska Native corporations and other Native American corporations 

with important competitive advantages, particularly in terms of competing for large federal projects. 

The importance of these programs to ASRC and its subsidiaries is demonstrated by recent contract 

awards to ASRC Management Services. ASRC Management Services is wholly owned subsidiary of 

ASRC formed in 2002 and certified as an Alaskan Native Corporation 8(a) with the Small Business 

Administration in January 2003 (ASRC Federal Holding Company 2005). On April 1, 2005, ASRC 

Management Services was awarded a Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contract 

supporting the Management of Seized and Forfeited Assets for the IRS Criminal Investigation Division 

at 36 sites across the U.S. The estimated value of the five year contract is $23.8 million. On July 5, 

2005, a $230 million federal contract was awarded to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) of Falls 

Church Virginia. ASRC Management Services is a sub-contractor to CSC and will provide financial 

management support for the project. The advantages conferred by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration 8(a) Program, HUBZone Empowerment Contracting Program, Indian Self 

Determination Act and Education Assistance Act of 1975, and the Indian Incentive Program (all 

discussed below) are another reason why many village corporations on the North Slope have spun off 

subsidiaries in environmental management and other types of businesses that do not require a large, 

up-front capital investment. 

5.4.1 U.S. Small Business Administration 8(a) Program 

The SBA 8(a) certification program provides enhanced access to federal contracts and has provided 

business opportunities to Native corporations that do not require heavy capital investments. This 

program has rescued several Native corporations on the verge of bankruptcy. This is a program to 

help minority-owned businesses win federal government contracts. Ninety-one of the 166 firms in 

Alaska with a SBA 8(a) certification are affiliated with ANCSA corporations. A subsidiary of ASRC—

Piquniq Management Corporation—was the first Native subsidiary in Alaska to be certified under the 

program (Stricker, 2003). 

Usually, to qualify, these businesses or their affiliates must meet strict size requirements as defined by 

average revenue requirements or in some cases, the number of employees. Since ASRC has been a 

large corporation for some time, it does not qualify under this program. If a disadvantaged business is 

certified as being in good standing and eligible to participate in the SBA 8(a) certification program, the 

business can negotiate large sole-source contracts with agencies of the federal government. While 

there are typically limits on for-service and manufacturing contracts, Alaska Native corporations are 

exempt from these limitations. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 109 

5.4.2 HUBZone Empowerment Contracting Program 

All the villages on the North Slope have been classified as HUBZones. The HUBZone Empowerment 

Contracting Program is part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. The acronym 

HUBZone stands for Historically Underutilized Business Zone. The goal of the program is to stimulate 

economic development and create jobs in urban and rural communities by providing federal 

contracting preferences to small businesses. These preferences go to small businesses that obtain 

HUBZone certification in part by employing staff that live in a HUBZone. The company must also 

maintain a “principal office” in one of these specially designated areas. These companies are given a 

price break in bidding for federal contracts of up to 10 percent. This gives them a competitive 

advantage since they can win contracts even when they are not the lowest bidder. There are four 

types of HUBZone contracting opportunities including (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2003): 

 Competitive: Contracts can be set-aside for HUBZone competition when the contracting officer 

has a reasonable expectation that at least two qualified HUBZone small business concerns (SBCs) 

will submit offers and that the contract will be awarded at a fair market price. 

 Sole-source: HUBZone contracts can be awarded if the contracting officer determines that: 

⇒ only one qualified HUBZone SBC is responsible to perform the contract, 

⇒ two or more qualified HUBZone SBCs are not likely to submit offers and 

⇒ the anticipated award price of the proposed contract, including options, will not exceed: 

− $5 million for a requirement within the North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) code for manufacturing or 

− $3 million for a requirement within all other NAICS codes 

 Full and open competitive contracts can be awarded with a price evaluation preference. The 

offer of the HUBZone small business must not be 10 percent higher than the offer of a non-small 

business. 

 Subcontracting: All subcontracting plans for large business federal contractors must include a 

HUBZone subcontracting goal.

5.4.3 Indian Self Determination Act and Education Assistance Act of 1975 

The aim of this law (P.L. 93-658) and its amendments is to facilitate “partnering between government 

and indigenous people.” Alaska Native corporations and American Indian tribes can obtain federal 

government contracts without competitive bidding. The law allows for the optional inclusion of 

outside agencies. As a result, Native organizations may enter into a self-determination contract to 

plan, conduct, and administer programs, including those that benefit the organization itself. The Act 

provides that tribes may enter into “self-determination contracts” with the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to administer programs or services that otherwise 

would have been administered by the federal government. Such programs include education, medical 

services, construction, and law enforcement (General Accounting Office, 1999).

5.4.4 Indian Incentive Program 

Originating from the Buy Indian Act, the Indian Incentive Program gives prime contractors of the 

Department of Defense a five percent bonus payment on work subcontracted to Indian-owned 

enterprises. The Department of Defense Indian Incentive Program strives to provide opportunities to 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

110 Final

Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises, by providing for the payment of five 

percent of the amount subcontracted to an Indian organization or Indian-owned economic enterprise 

at any sub-tier, when authorized under the terms of the contract. The definition of an “Indian 

Organization,” is the governing body of any Indian tribe or entity established or recognized by the 

governing body of an Indian tribe for the purposes of 25 U.S.C. Chapter 17. An “Indian-Owned 

Economic Enterprise,” is any Indian-owned (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior) 

commercial, industrial, or business activity established or organized for the purpose of profit, provided 

that the Indian ownership constitutes not less than 51 percent of the enterprise (U.S. Department of 

Defense, 2003). 

5.5 Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

This section presents background information on the business operations and corporate structure of 

ASRC and provides context for the discussion of revenues, dividends, and employment that follows. 

Contributions to the North Slope economy by Alaska Native corporations take place in many ways. 

ASRC pays dividends, employs shareholders and other residents of the Borough, provides educational 

and training opportunities, and pays tax-free dividends to village elders. 

5.5.1 History of Alaska Slope Regional Corporation 

When ASRC was formed in 1972, all the regional Alaska Native corporations faced similar initial 

conditions, including the general stability of the surrounding economy and the statewide and 

worldwide menu of potential investment opportunities available (Colt, 2001). However, there were 

significant differences between the corporations in terms of natural resource endowments, size of 

local markets, human capital, and cultural backgrounds (Colt, 2001). 

While the North Slope was favorably endowed with potential oil and gas deposits, local markets were 

small, and the same small pool of people was called upon to start up the regional and village 

corporations, select lands, and organize a new local governmental entity, the NSB—all at the same 

time. ASRC was incorporated on July 7, 1972, and the NSB was incorporated as a first class borough 

on July 1, 1972. The limits of the human capital available are summed up by the following quote from 

a letter to shareholders in the 1975 Annual Report of ASRC. 

...we have, as a small population of people, been attempting to establish a new system of 

government, the North Slope Borough, in a vast land area, at the very same time that we have 

had the responsibility of using the same people to create a business corporation (ASRC, 

1975). 

In 1973, ASRC recorded its first revenue of $6,000 (ASRC, 2001). By 2002, ASRC with its numerous 

subsidiaries, partnerships, and joint ventures reported almost $974 million in revenue. ASRC (2003) 

describes itself as follows: 

ASRC is a private, for profit Alaska Native owned corporation representing the business 

interests of the Arctic Slope Iñupiat. Corporation headquarters are based in Barrow, Alaska 

with administrative and subsidiary offices located at Anchorage and through out the world. 

This natural resource based corporation employs 6,000 people, has a growing shareholder 

population of 9,000, and has title to approximately five million acres of land. A founding 

principle of ASRC is respect for the Iñupiat heritage. 

ASRC is committed to preserving the Iñupiat culture and traditions which strengthen both our 

shareholders and ASRC. By adhering to the traditional values of protecting the land, the 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 111 

environment and the culture of the Iñupiat, ASRC has successfully adapted and prospered in 

an ever changing economic climate. 

Table 5-2 presents a selection of important milestones in the history of ASRC. This timeline, as does 

the organizational chart displayed in Figure 5-1 on page 115, helps demonstrate the growth, 

complexity, diversity, and far-reaching impact of ASRC. 

Table 5-2. Timeline of Alaska Slope Regional Corporation Activities 

Year Event 

1972 ASRC created. 

1973 Receives $3 million from Standard Oil of California for oil leases on land ASRC is considering for 

selection. 

Establishes Iñupiat Builders, Inc. to build homes and commercial buildings on the North Slope. Builds 8 

private homes in Kaktovik at an average price of $30,000. 

1974 Establishes Eskimos Inc., which is involved in heavy-duty equipment and operations, fuel distribution, 

auto equipment repair, and a service station. 

Incorporates Tundra Tours (TT) a joint venture with Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Village Corporation to construct 

a hotel–restaurant complex in Barrow. 

Eskimos, Inc. partners with SKW/Clinton to form SKW/Eskimos, Inc., which is involved in industrial, 

general, and civil construction. 

 Opens office in Anchorage. 

1975 Screening and selection of almost 6 million acres completed. 

 Establishes Iñupiat Builders, Inc. to construct homes in Point Lay 

Top of the World Hotel becomes entirely owned and operated by TT. TT enters into a joint venture 

contract with Alaska Catering Company to provide food and maintenance services to construction 

camps along the TAPS. 

Forms Arctic Technical Services, Inc. to provide parent corporation and other subsidiaries with 

engineering, geotechnical and scientific planning, economic and environmental analysis, and other 

technical information. 

Participates in joint venture with Alaska General Construction, Inc. as sub-contract to Husky Oil 

Company for work in NPR-A 

 Reorganizes ASRC/Communications to provide services to requesting agencies. 

Receives $4.9 million for payments of lease agreements with major oil companies, with an additional 

$2.6 million to be received subsequent to land conveyance. 

1977 Acquires Barrow Cable TV as a division. 

 Spins off ASRC Communications from division to subsidiary. 

 Posts first $1.4 million net profit. 

1978 Establishes Arctic Education Foundation to provide scholarships and other benefits for shareholders 

and children. 

Distributes first dividends. 

1979 Signs land exchange with U.S. Department of Interior, which allows ASRC to obtain land in the NPR-A 

and ANWR. The exchange is ratified in 1980 by ANILCA. 

1981 Establishes first start up firm, an engineering company later to become Arctic Slope Consulting Group 

(ASCG). 

1984 Establishes Piquiniq Management Corporation (PMC), a full service facility and maintenance 

contractor. 

1985 Acquires interest in Petro-Star, a small refinery in North Pole. 

Acquires 80 percent interest in Houston Construction, a pipeline construction and maintenance 

company. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

112 Final

Year Event 

 Petroleum refining and energy services now account for two thirds of total annual revenue. 

1987 Natchiq forms Alaska Petroleum Contractors (APC) and ASCG acquires Ocean Technology, Ltd. 

1988 “1991” amendments signed into law. 

1989 Develops long range international development program to explore worldwide business opportunities. 

1991 Receives a $30 million advance on sale of net operating losses, which is used to establish a 

permanent fund and Elder’s Settlement Trust and reduce debt. 

 Expands shareholder hiring and training program. 

1993 Creates ASRC Contracting Company, Inc. (ACCI) 

1994 Resolves dispute with U.S. Internal Revenue Service over net operating losses, releasing proceeds of 

$91 million. 

1995 Earns the highest annual revenues of any Alaska-owned company. 

Oil discovered at Alpine on land owned by ASRC, Kuukpik Corporation, and State of Alaska 

Increases ownership interest in Petro Star Valdez Refinery to 75.2 percent. 

Newly incorporated subsidiary, Puget Plastics Corporation acquires Portland, Oregon-based plastic 

products manufacturing division of Puget Corporation. 

1996 Begins holding its annual meeting in a different North Slope village each year, thereby providing 

economic benefits to the communities. 

 Acquires 35 percent of outstanding stock of PMC and increases ownership to 91 percent. 

Subsidiary ASCG, Inc. acquires Leedshill Herkenhoff, Inc., an engineering and design firm in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

1997 Opens Iñupiat House at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Forms Arctic Slope World Services (government services contractor) when subsidiaries PMC and 

ACCI are transferred to the new entity. 

1998 Natchiq, Inc. acquires Omega Services Industries, a full service onshore and offshore construction and 

fabrication contractor. Forms Natchiq Sakhalin, Inc. 

Petro Star, Inc. and SKW Constructors enter into partnership with CDM Resource Management, Ltd., a 

gas compression company 

2000 Acquires Tri Ocean Engineering, Ltd., an engineering and consulting firm located in Calgary, Canada 

with offices in Nova Scotia and Russia. 

ASCG acquires assets of McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd., an engineering and design firm based in 

Denver, Colorado 

SKW/Eskimos enters into joint venture with the Kuukpik Corporation and completes $50 million of civil 

construction for Phillips Alaska on Alpine Field Development Project. 

 Production at Alpine oil field begins. 

2001 Experiences a decrease in engineering and construction revenue due to completion of NSB water and 

sewer construction projects and completion of development of Alpine oil field. 

Forms new subsidiary, ASRC Service Center, Inc., to consolidate business support services of 

subsidiaries. 

2002 ASRC and Anchorage-based subsidiaries housed together in a new 10-story, 210,000 square-foot 

office building. Plans to shift business support functions such as IT, accounting, and human resources 

into one shared services organization. 

Source: ASRC Annual Reports and Web pages. 

5.5.2 Corporate Structure of Alaska Slope Regional Corporation and its Subsidiaries and 

Joint Ventures 

As demonstrated by the timeline in Table 5-2, ASRC has numerous subsidiaries, joint ventures, 

partnerships, and other business activities. Its business activities include commercial construction, 

resource exploration and development, petroleum refining and products sales, plastic products 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 113 

manufacturing, automotive merchandise sales, oil field support, hotel ownership, tourism, 

engineering, consulting, environmental remediation, governmental contracting, communications, and 

television operations (ASRC, 2000, 2001). 

Figure 5-1 shows an organizational chart for ASRC. It includes eleven first tier subsidiaries. Under 

these subsidiaries are other fully owned ASRC companies and joint venture partnerships. This diagram 

is included to demonstrate ASRC’s complex arrangement of subsidiaries, partnerships, and joint 

ventures. The list is not exhaustive and is constantly changing to meet corporate needs and business 

demands and opportunities. 

Figure 5-1 also shows some of the joint ventures between the ASRC subsidiary SKW/Eskimos, Inc. and 

the Alaska Native village corporations in the NSB. These joint ventures will be discussed in more detail 

in the followings sections. 

Also of note is that while the headquarters of ASRC are in Barrow, the headquarters for many of the 

subsidiaries are located in Anchorage. In addition, many of ASRC’s subsidiaries and partnerships have 

offices or headquarters outside of Alaska. In 2002, the Anchorage office of ASRC and ASRC’s 

Anchorage-based subsidiaries became the primary tenants in a new office building in Anchorage. 

It is beyond the scope of this report to assess the performance of ASRC and its operations, but a brief 

description of each of the 11 first tier subsidiaries is provided below. 

Alaska Growth Capital is a business and industrial development corporation (BIDCO), which is a new 

type of non-bank financial institution designed to fill the financing gap between typical bank financing 

and the capital needs of Alaska’s businesses. The company was formed in 1997 with $3 million from 

ASRC and a matching grant of $3 million from the former Alaska Science and Technology Foundation. 

In 2002, they made $20 million in loans and expect to reach or exceed $25 million in 2003 (Bradner, 

2003). 

Arctic Slope World Services (ASWS) was formed when subsidiaries Piquniq Management 

Corporation (PMC) and ASRC Contracting Company, Inc. were transferred to the new entity in 1997. 

According to ASWS (2003), the company has annual revenues of $90 million and 481 employees, 

with operating locations in various areas of the United States, Greenland, and England. Among the 

services that ASWS provides are radar, electrical, and communication system operations and 

maintenance services; utilities and facilities operations and maintenance services; and support 

services to the commercial and government aviation communities. 

ASCG, Inc. provides engineering, architectural, and technical services to commercial clients and 

federal, state, and municipal agencies. ASCG, Inc. was founded in 1981 and holds the distinction of 

being the first start-up subsidiary of ASRC. ASCG, Inc. has approximately 600 employees. Its 

headquarters are in Anchorage. ASCG and its subsidiaries have offices in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, 

New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. Its services include architectural design, civil, mechanical, 

structural, electrical, and environmental engineering, hydrogeology, surveying and mapping, planning, 

and construction management, and non-destructive testing and inspection services. ASCG is 

consistently ranked in the nation’s top 500 design firms by Engineering News Record, placing number 

133 in 2002 (ASCG, 2003). 

ASRC Aerospace is a diversified enterprise formed in November 1997. Its operations include six 

principal business segments: systems engineering and operations, information management, hardware 

maintenance and operations, hardware electronics, software engineering, and spaceport and range 

research and technology. Its clients include NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and the 

NASA White Sand Complex in New Mexico. The company currently supports 15 contracts with a 

base of over 700 employees (ASRC Aerospace, 2003). 1contracts providing a base of 700l 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

114 Final

ASRC Communications is a technical services and information technology company offering a variety 

of analytical, computer technology, and other types of support for government and commercial 

customers. It has offices in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, and New Mexico. 

Services include test and evaluation, modeling and simulation, intelligence, information management, 

software engineering, help desk operations, computer facilities management, networking, and cabling. 

ASRC Communications developed its present organization from the merger of two companies with 

compatible business interests. ASRC Communications merged with Correa Enterprises, Inc., a Native 

American-owned information technology company in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1999. Correa 

Enterprises, Inc. had been providing contract support to various government agencies and commercial 

clients since 1980. ASRC Communications headquarters were relocated from Anchorage, Alaska to 

Albuquerque, New Mexico (ASRC Communications, 2003). 

ASRC Energy Services is organized into three business units and includes more than 20 companies. 

The operations and maintenance unit focuses on Alaska and Russia and includes businesses formerly 

known as APC Natchiq and Natchiq Sakhalin, Ltd. The pipeline and power unit includes Houston 

Nana LLC and Global Power and Communications. Its activities focus on the pipeline and power 

transmission industry both in Alaska and in the lower 48 states. The engineering and technology unit 

includes Omega Natchiq, Tri-Ocean Natchiq, and E&P Technology. Its activities are directed towards 

Gulf of Mexico fabrication, domestic and international engineering, drilling support, well completion, 

and exploration and production management (ASRC, 2002). 

Eskimos, Inc. provides heavy-duty equipment and operators, local fuel distribution in Barrow, and 

automotive parts and repairs, and a Polaris dealer. In 1974, Eskimos, Inc. formed a partnership with 

SKW/Clinton called SKW/Eskimos, Inc. (ASRC, 1975, 2002; Arctic Development Council, 2003). 

Petro Star and its subsidiaries produce jet, heating, and diesel fuels from crude oil from the transAlaska pipeline, which they refine and distribute and sell to the Alaska market. Petro Star has 

refineries in Valdez and North Pole (ASRC, 2002). 

Puget Plastics Corporation manufactures custom injection molded plastic parts, precision fabricated 

metal products, and electronic assemblies and subassemblies (ASRC, 2002). 

SKW/Eskimos, Inc. is a general construction contractor that performs commercial, industrial, 

earthwork, ice, and oil field service construction. The company has operated in Alaska since 1974 

and has offices in Anchorage and Barrow. According to their web page, SKW/Eskimos, Inc. is one of 

the largest general contractors in Alaska with annual revenues averaging $75 million over the last 

three years. Their client list includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation 

Administration, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Postal Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Public Health Service, 

State of Alaska, NSB, University of Alaska, and a number of private sector clients, including Phillips 

Alaska Petroleum (SKW/Eskimos, Inc., 2003).

Top of the World Hotel provides hospitality and tourism services in Barrow. In 1974, ASRC 

embarked on a joint venture with Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Village Corporation to build a hotel–restaurant 

complex in Barrow, Alaska. Tundra Tours was incorporated in 1974 and provides package tours to 

Barrow from Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska. Tundra Tours is the oldest of ASRC’s wholly-owned 

subsidiaries. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 115 

Figure 5-1. Organizational Chart for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

116 Final

5.5.3 Alaska Slope Regional Corporation Revenues and Dividends 

In the early years of ASRC, income was dependent on natural resources. Oil lease agreements were 

an important source of revenue for the new corporation. In 1973, for example, Standard Oil of 

California paid $3 million for leases on lands ASRC was considering for selection. However, according 

to its 2002 Annual Report, ASRC revenues from resource development accounted for only one 

percent ($10.8 million) of total revenues. In the 2002 Annual Report, ASRC operations are classified 

into seven industry segments: energy services, petroleum refining and marketing, technical services, 

engineering and construction, manufacturing, other businesses, and resource development of the 

lands received as part of the ANCSA settlement. Figure 5-2 shows the contributions of these various 

segments to ASRC’s revenues. The primary source of ASRC’s revenue is service and construction 

contracts (ASRC, 2000, 2001, 2002). 

Figure 5-2. Contributions of Business Segments to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Revenue 

Energy Services

39%

Technical Service

18%

Petroleum Refining 

and Marketing

27%

Manufacturing

2%

Other Businesses

2%

Resource 

Development

1%

Engineering and 

Construction

11%

Energy Services Petroleum Refining and Marketing Technical Service

Engineering and Construction Manufacturing Other Businesses

Resource Development

Source: ASRC, 2002. 

In Figure 5-3, ASRC revenues are compared to dividends. In 1996, ASRC set an ambitious goal of 

doubling its revenues to $1 billion by the year 2001. They accomplished that goal a year early in 

2000. In 2001, ASRC reported income of $1.2 billion—the highest in the corporation’s history. 

Revenues for 2002 decreased by approximately 8 percent to $974 million. 

The first dividends were distributed in 1978, and except for 1981 and 1983, dividends have been 

distributed every year since. Between 1978 and 2002, ASRC paid out $136.7 million in dividends. In 

1994 and 1995, exceptionally high dividends were paid, totaling more than $64 million paid in those 

two years. The large sum was the result of a resolution of a dispute between ASRC and the Internal 

Revenue Service over net operating losses; the resolution released $91 million in proceeds. ASRC 

distributed a one-time dividend of $50 per share (ASRC, 2001). In 2002, ASRC distributed $6.9 

million in dividends. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 117 

Figure 5-3. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Revenues and Dividends, 1973-2002 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Year

Revenue ($Million)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Dividends ($Million)

Revenue Dividends

Source: ASRC, 2001, 2002. 

Note: In 1994, a dispute between ASRC and the Internal Revenue Service over net operating losses was 

resolved releasing $91 million in proceeds. ASRC distributed a one-time dividend of $50 per share (ASRC, 

2001). 

Table 5-3 presents ASRC’s operating revenue, estimated net income, shareholder equity, dividends 

distributed to all shareholders, shareholders dividend payout ratio (as a percent of net income), and 

the estimated dividends distributed to shareholders living in the NSB for 1973 through 2002. 

Glenn (2001) estimates that 75 percent of ASRC shareholders live in the NSB, and based on that 

estimate, NSB residents received $102.7 million in dividends between 1978 and 2002. However, it 

must be noted that while residents received dividends, it is unlikely that all of these monies were 

spent in North Slope communities. 

Since 1973, ASRC has increased its revenues at an average rate of 37 percent per year. Shareholder 

equity has grown at an average rate of 27 percent. 

The net income column in Table 5-3 shows estimated income, shareholders’ equity, and the total 

dividend payout for the year. Shareholders’ equity represents the difference between the total value 

of the corporation’s assets (including cash, marketable securities, physical assets, and receivables) and 

its liabilities (including payables and short and long-term debt). Changes from year to year reflect net 

income and any dividends that are paid out from profits. The dividend payout reflects the percentage 

of each year’s net income that was paid out directly to shareholders, which represents 36.1 percent of 

the $383.8 million in net income over that period. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

118 Final

Table 5-3. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Revenues, Dividends, and Shareholders’ Equity, 1973-2002 

Year 

Operating 

Revenue 

($ Millions) 

Estimated Net 

Income 

($ Millions) 

Shareholders’ 

Equity 

($ Millions) 

Dividends 

Distributed

($ Millions)

Dividend 

Payout Ratio 

(Percent) 

Dividends to 

Shareholders/ 

Residents of North 

Slope ($Millions) 1

1973 0.1 - 0.2 0.0 - 0.0 

1974 5.3 4.0 4.2 0.0 0 0.0 

1975 1.8 0.9 5.1 0.0 0 0.0 

1976 2.3 -0.9 4.2 0.0 0 0.0 

1977 9.4 1.9 6.1 0.0 0 0.0 

1978 12.8 3.2 9.1 0.2 6 0.2 

1979 29.5 5.2 14.0 0.3 6 0.2 

1980 38.6 10.6 24.3 0.3 3 0.2 

1981 25.9 2.5 26.8 0.0 0 0.0 

1982 33.2 -6.5 20.0 0.3 na 0.2 

1983 43.0 1.8 21.8 0.0 0 0.0 

1984 55.0 4.3 25.3 0.8 19 0.6 

1985 48.8 1.9 25.9 1.3 68 1.0 

1986 57.3 0.9 26.3 0.5 56 0.4 

1987 75.0 2.1 28.2 0.2 10 0.2 

1988 93.7 2.8 30.6 0.4 14 0.3 

1989 112.8 7.2 37.1 0.7 10 0.5 

1990 218.4 12.0 48.0 1.1 9 0.8 

1991 265.8 15.4 61.8 1.6 10 1.2 

1992 254.3 26.7 85.7 2.8 10 2.1 

1993 254.9 13.6 94.0 5.3 39 4.0 

1994 466.2 95.9 150.6 39.3 41 29.5 

1995 468.5 22.9 150.4 23.1 101 17.3 

1996 530.3 21.8 163.8 8.4 39 6.3 

1997 662.8 24.1 180.7 7.2 30 5.4 

1998 887.5 27.8 199.9 8.6 31 6.5 

1999 865.6 15.1 206.6 8.4 56 6.3 

2000 1,034.5 20.1 218.5 8.2 41 6.2 

2001 1,061.8 30.3 240.3 8.5 28 6.4 

2002 973.7 16.2 247.3 9.2 57 6.9 

Total 8,588.8 383.8 2,356.8 136.7 36.4 102.7 

Source: ASRC, 2001, 2002; Glenn, 2001. 

1 The assumption is made that 75 percent of shareholders are residents of the North Slope.

na - Data were unavailable for this report 

In assessing the performance of a corporation, one corporation is often compared with another. 

Typically, a comparison would be made between ASRC and another public corporation to document 

ASRC’s relative performance. However, this comparison for an Alaska Native corporation is 

complicated by a number of factors. First, shares of ASRC are treated differently than publicly traded 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 119 

shares. Since ASRC shareholders cannot sell their shares, there is no market for ASRC shares, and a 

market value cannot be determined. While some comparisons may be made based upon book value 

per share, the lack of a market value prevents most analysis. Several other methods are available for 

determining the value of a business, but each faces limitations due to the lack of available 

information. 

An alternative technique to determine the intrinsic value of a company is to utilize projected growth 

rates. However, it is unreasonable to assume that ASRC will continue to grow 30 to 40 percent per 

year in the future. Such high growth rates are typical in the expansion phase of new companies, but 

are rare for established companies. 

Second, because ASRC shares have no market value, most financial measures cannot be calculated. 

For instance, while the dividend payout ratio may be determined from the total dividends paid and 

the net income for a given year, there is no way to determine the dividend yield, which is the annual 

dividend paid as a percentage of the corporation’s market value. The payout ratio may be useful to 

compare individual business segments against peers, but the yield is the more useful measure when 

comparing with the broader equity market. 

A third factor that confuses an analysis of the performance of ASRC is the revenue-sharing agreement 

between the twelve regional corporations. The agreement makes it difficult to analyze investment 

opportunities for ASRC without accounting for all the opportunities available to all the regional 

corporations, which introduces uncertainty arising from the varied financial performance among the 

other eleven corporations. Calculations of rate of return must account for the revenues ASRC expects 

to keep from various investments, as well as the revenues ASRC expects to receive from or share with 

other corporations. ASRC’s return on its own natural resource related investments is only 30 percent 

of the full return due to sharing. However, at the same time, other corporations are expected to share 

revenues from their natural resource development with ASRC. These receipts contribute to ASRC’s 

net income, but cannot be attributed to any particular investment or capital. 

Table 5-4 shows consolidated income for ASRC for 1995 through 2002. Over the eight-year period, 

ASRC’s revenues more than doubled, from $468 million to $974 million. The greatest portion of 

ASRC’s sales come from contracting, sales and services, with smaller amounts from shared 7(i) 

revenues ($10.8 million in 2002), earnings from affiliates ($24.8 million in 2002) and interest and 

investment earnings ($1.6 million in 2002). 

Earnings before taxes varied from $20.2 million in 1995 to $14.9 million in 2002, with a low of 

$118,000 in 2000. Income tax benefits and provisions resulted in a net income after taxes of $19.8 

million in 1995 and $16.8 million in 2002, with a high of $20.9 million in 2001 and a low of $15.6 

million in 1999. 

Retained earnings increased from $131.6 million in 1995 to $217.7 million in 2002. Dividends 

ranged from $23.1 million in 1995 to $9.2 million in 2002. In addition, ASRC paid distributions in the 

form of “Elders’ Trust Distributions” of approximately $445,000 in 1995 and $675,000 in 2002. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

120 Final

Table 5-4. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Consolidated Income Statement, 1995-2002 

 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2000 2002 

Revenues 

Contracting, sales, and services 447,611 513,301 636,884 867,549 864,965 1,031,326 1,048,439 1,031,326 962,840

Natural resources, net of 7(i) obligation 4,595 3,694 10,447 1,134 658 3,204 13,400 3,204 10,830

Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates 5,636 5,492 5,062 3,772 4,618 4,790 9,298 4,790 24,781

Interest and investment earnings 8,361 4,987 6,928 9,852 5,972 1,478 2,966 1,478 1,610

Other revenues (expenses), net 2,321 2,836 3,503 16,569 5,318 (3,868) (1,903) (3,868) (608)

Total Revenues 468,524 530,310 662,824 898,876 881,531 1,036,930 1,072,200 1,036,930 999,453

Expenses 

Direct cost of operations 383,410 442,182 560,353 751,443 763,016 918,056 910,931 918,056 863,145

Administrative and general 56,784 56,132 66,690 94,912 85,328 101,590 104,545 101,590 99,615

Interest expense 6,903 6,132 7,787 16,865 11,703 12,609 15,580 12,609 14,666

Net income allocable to minority interests 1,201 2,973 2,990 5,647 4,471 4,557 7,328 4,557 7,161

Total Expenses 448,298 507,419 637,820 868,867 864,518 1,036,812 1,038,384 1,036,812 984,587

Income before taxes 20,226 22,891 25,004 30,009 17,013 118 33,816 118 14,866

Income tax benefit (provision) (382) (573) (431) (1,596) (1,377) 20,604 (2,939) 20,604 1,926

Net income 19,844 22,318 24,573 28,413 15,636 20,722 30,877 20,722 16,792

Retained earnings at beginning of year 131,594 127,889 141,308 158,193 177,412 184,108 195,989 184,108 217,710

Net income 19,844 22,318 24,573 28,413 15,636 20,722 30,877 20,722 16,792

Dividends declared (23,104) (8,428) (7,177) (8,646) (8,354) (8,226) (8,514) (8,226) (9,177)

Elders’ Trust distributions (445) (471) (511) (548) (586) (615) (642) (615) (675)

Retained earnings at end of year 127,889 141,308 158,193 177,412 184,108 195,989 217,710 195,989 224,650

Dividend per share 31.00 10.95 9.07 10.68 10.07 9.66 9.75 9.66 10.28

Source: ASRC, 2001, 2002. 

5.5.4 Alaska Slope Regional Corporation Employment 

This section begins with a description of the available ASRC employment data and its limitations. 

Next, employment information for ASRC, its subsidiaries, joint ventures, and partnerships are 

presented. 

5.5.4.1 Data Limitations 

Estimating the number of jobs on the North Slope that can be attributed to Alaska Native corporations 

proved to be a difficult task. Information on employment was requested from ASRC and all eight 

village corporations. A limited amount of information on employment and other contributions was 

received from ASRC, the Cully Corporation of Point Lay, and the Tikigaq Corporation of Point Hope. 

The Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation of Barrow provided some information on educational benefits. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 121 

The data that best fit the needs of this study (i.e., the number of North Slope residents who work for 

ASRC and the village corporations) came from economic and census profiles compiled by the NSB 

(Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999, 2004; North Slope Borough Department of Planning and 

Community Services, 1989, 1995). The information is based on surveys conducted in each of the 

villages in the Borough. However, one limitation of this data is that they are available for only four 

years—1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003—while the study covers the period from 1965 to the present. To 

some extent, census information collected by Alaska Consultants, Inc. (1981) in 1981 can also be 

used, thereby expanding the time covered, but the employment categories of the 1981 census are not 

completely compatible with the categories in the 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003 census. This crosssectional information is presented in the section on village corporation employment. 

The employment information provided by ASRC or in ASRC annual reports also has limitations. For 

example, when ASRC reports the number of its employees working on the North Slope, it does not 

necessarily mean those individuals are permanent residents of the North Slope. 

5.5.4.2 Alaska Slope Regional Corporation Employment. 

The employment and education of shareholders is a priority for ASRC (McDiarmid et al., 1998) Hiring 

priorities for ASRC are: 

1. Qualified ASRC shareholders 

2. Qualified spouses of shareholders 

3. Qualified Alaska Natives who are not ASRC shareholders 

4. Other Native Americans 

5. Others 

ASRC, its subsidiaries, joint ventures, and partnerships are major employers not only of shareholders 

but of other Alaska residents as well. ASRC has 6,000 employees (ASRC, 2003). Alaska Petroleum 

Contractors (APC), one of ASRC’s subsidiaries, ranked 7th on the 2002 list of Alaska’s 100 largest 

private employers with 1,210 employees (Fried, 2002). APC is an oil service company and is 

perennially the largest Native-owned subsidiary on the annual list. A second subsidiary of ASRC, Petro 

Star, was on the list for the first time in 2002. Petro Star is an oil refiner, distributor, and retailer. It was 

ranked 83rd with 308 employees. Houston NANA, LLC is a joint venture between ASRC and the 

NANA Development Corporation and is ranked 57th on the list with 412 employees. 

However, it is difficult to assess the impact of ASRC employment on the North Slope economy. All of 

the subsidiaries, joint venture activities, partnerships, and other business activities contribute to 

ASRC’s bottom line, but its effects on the economy of the North Slope may be quite different from its 

effects on shareholders or on Alaska’s economy as a whole. For example, ASRC Communications has 

offices and worksites in Anchorage; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey; 

Aberdeen, Adelphi, Annapolis, and Greenbelt, Maryland; and St. Louis, Missouri. None of its business 

activities take place on the North Slope. As a result, the impact of ASRC Communications on the 

North Slope economy is limited. Employees of ASRC Communications do not contribute to the 

region’s economy unless they are North Slope residents or shareholders. 

In contrast, SKW/Eskimos, Inc. has offices in Anchorage and Barrow. It offers commercial, industrial, 

earthwork, ice and oil field service construction. The company has also carried out numerous projects 

on the North Slope employing local residents and shareholders. SKW/Eskimos, Inc. has proved adept 

at partnering with Alaska Native village corporations and as a result has had a more direct economic 

impact on the North Slope region and individual villages. It has formed joint ventures or partnerships 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

122 Final

with at least seven of the eight North Slope communities. SKW/Eskimos, Inc. gives hiring preference to 

North Slope residents and Alaska Native corporation shareholders. In addition, it buys local services 

including fuel and camp facilities. 

ASRC provided information on the number of its employees working on the North Slope at five-year 

intervals dating back to 1992 for the month of December. Figure 5-4 presents this information, 

comparing the total number of employees to the number of shareholders employed. In December 

1992, ASRC reports 706 (21 percent) employees working on the North Slope. That number increased 

to 1,176 (16 percent) in December 1997, and to 1,463 (16 percent) in December 2002. 

Figure 5-4. Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation in the North Slope Borough, 

1992, 1997, and 2002 

558

148

990

186

1,223

240

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

December 1992 December 1997 December 2002

Non-shareholders Shareholders

706

1,176

1,463

Source: ASRC, 2003. 

Table 5-5 present a more detailed accounting of ASRC employees by company including employment 

of spouses, other Alaska Natives, other Native Americans, and an “other” category. Of the 1,463 

individuals employed by ARSC and its subsidiaries in December 2002, 240 were shareholders, 45 

were shareholder spouses, 36 were Alaska Natives but not shareholders, and 29 were other Native 

Americans. Of the total individuals employed in December 2002, approximately 76 percent or 1,113 

fall into the “other” category (Table 5-7). 

Several issues make the information in these tables problematic in terms of documenting the impact 

of ASRC employment on the economy of the North Slope. First, the contributions to the local 

economy of individuals who work, live, and spend their wages on the North Slope will be significantly 

different than the contributions to the local economy of workers who work on the North Slope and 

reside elsewhere. For example, the majority of ASRC employees working on the North Slope are 

based in the industrial enclave at Prudhoe Bay. Alaska Petroleum Contractors’ operations in Prudhoe 

Bay account for the highest number of ASRC employees in 1992, 1997, and 2002. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 123 

While it is not possible to tell from the data presented here where people permanently reside, it is 

probable that the majority of ASRC’s workers at Prudhoe Bay are not residents of the North Slope. In 

particular, it is likely that nearly all of the non-shareholder ASRC employees follow the same pattern 

as most other workers at the Prudhoe Bay oil facilities—they commute between Prudhoe Bay and 

their permanent residences elsewhere in the state or the lower 48 states (U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, 1996). 

Table 5-5. Distribution of Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

 in the North Slope Borough, 1992 

Company (Location) Total Shareholders

Shareholder

Spouses 

Other 

Alaska 

Natives 

Other 

Native 

Americans Other 

ASCG (Barrow) 9 6 0 0 0 3 

Coal Project (Point Lay) 4 4 0 0 0 0 

AXIS Communications (Barrow) 1 0 0 0 1 

ASRC (Barrow) 61 52 0 0 0 9 

BCTV (Barrow) 7 4 0 0 0 3 

Eskimos Inc. 15 13 0 0 0 2 

Natchiq (Prudhoe Bay) 90 12 0 0 0 78 

APC (Prudhoe Bay) 303 20 0 0 0 283 

Houston Contracting Co. 

(Prudhoe Bay) 75 2 0 0 0 73 

VRCA (Prudhoe Bay) 38 4 0 0 0 34 

Petro Star (Prudhoe Bay) 2 0 0 1 1 

Piquniq Management Corporation 

(Barrow) 

3 1 1 0 1 

Piquniq Management Corporation 

(Prudhoe Bay) 

54 13 0 5 0 36 

SKW/Eskimos (Barrow) 17 7 2 0 0 8 

Top of the World Hotel (Barrow) 10 4 0 0 0 6 

UAS/BGF JV (Barrow) 17 7 1 2 0 7 

Total 706 148 4 8 1 545 

Source: ASRC, 2003 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

124 Final

Table 5-6. Distribution of Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

 in the North Slope Borough, 1997 

Company/Location Total Shareholders

Shareholder

Spouses 

Other 

Alaska 

Natives 

Other 

Native 

Americans Other 

ASCG (Barrow) 22 5 1 0 0 16 

 OceanTech-Pipeline 10 0 0 0 0 10 

ASRC (Barrow) 46 41 1 0 0 4 

PMC-Prudhoe 32 5 2 8 - 17 

BCTV (Barrow) 7 4 1 0 0 2 

Eskimos Inc. 18 14 3 0 0 1 

Natchiq-Prudhoe Bay 3 0 0 0 0 3 

Alaska Petroleum ContractorsPrudhoe Bay 

833 31 18 24 6 754 

Houston Contracting Co.-Alyeska 

(PS# 1-12) 

36 0 0 0 0 29 

Houston Contracting Co.-

Prudhoe Bay 

23 1 0 0 0 20 

Sourdough Fuel-Coldfoot 12 1 0 1 0 10 

SKW/Eskimos (Barrow) 59 40 1 2 1 15 

 Villages + JV 39 19 0 0 0 20 

Top of the World Hotel (Barrow) 36 25 0 0 0 11 

Total 1,176 186 27 44 7 912 

Source: ASRC, 2003. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 125 

Table 5-7. Distribution of Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

in the North Slope Borough, 2002 

Company/Location Total Shareholders

Shareholder 

Spouses 

Other 

Alaska 

Natives 

Other 

Native 

Americans Other 

ASCG (Barrow) 16 3 2 0 0 11 

ASRC (Barrow) 40 36 1 0 0 3 

PMC-Village Clean Water1

 61 37 7 1 0 16 

BCTV (Barrow) 3 2 0 0 0 1 

Eskimos Inc. 19 13 4 0 0 2 

Alaska Petroleum ContractorsPrudhoe Bay 1,107 89 25 10 28 955 

Houston Contracting Co.-Alyeska 

(PS# 1-12) 

109 2 0 21 0 86 

Houston Contracting Co.-

Prudhoe Bay 

6 1 0 0 0 5 

TRI-Ocean- Prudhoe Bay 2 0 0 0 0 2 

SKW/Eskimos (Barrow) 17 9 2 2 1 3 

Villages Joint Venture 65 35 4 2 0 24 

Top of the World Hotel (Barrow) 18 13 0 0 0 5 

Total 1,463 240 45 36 29 1,113 

Source: ASRC, 2003. 

1

A project that operates in various North Slope communities. 

Table 5-8 presents additional information on employment for ASRC and some of its subsidiaries. 

These data are from ES-202 Reports submitted to DOLWD, which summarize the employment, 

wages, and contributions of workers covered by unemployment insurance. While the Department 

maintains these records back to 1977, the information for a particular employer can be tracked only if 

the name of the company has not changed. Another problem with using ES-202 data is that the data 

are based on reported addresses. These addresses may be for an accounting service or company 

headquarters rather than the actual work location, thus causing some distortion in the numbers and 

the potential for double counting. As a result, while Table 5-8 shows ASRC employment, the work 

location of employees cannot be identified. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

126 Final

Table 5-8. Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Selected Subsidiaries, and Joint Ventures, 1977- 

Company 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 199

ASRC 47 70 78 51 44 39 37 35 35 33 34 35 40 48 57 76 78 80 83 78 7Houston/Nana JV - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9Great Northwest-SKW LLC - - - 8 6 12 9 16 15 9 11 14 17 15 20 23 26 17 22 28 3Alaska Growth Capital - - - - - - - - - - - - - Alaska Petroleum Contractors - - - - - - - - - 1 165 325 407 813 801 553 554 678 10061103 913 ASRC Energy Services - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2Arctic Slope World Services - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

ASCG, Inc. - - - - - 3 6 11 17 21 31 44 56 73 91 122 119 85 81 108 11ASRC Communications - - - 28 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 6 5 7 7 6 6 7 Eskimos, Inc. 20 67 49 44 30 14 7 9 11 9 10 10 8 12 15 16 16 16 17 17 1Global Power & Communication - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Houston Contracting Co. - - - - - - - - - 160 72 68 100 132 100 153 139 280 132 54 6Houston Contracting Co-Ak, Ltd - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Natchiq - - - - - - - - - 1 12 49 69 101 119 108 56 33 80 37 3Petro Star, Inc. - - - - - - - - 4 15 16 13 14 16 25 29 32 35 35 33 3SKW/Eskimos, Inc. - - - - - - - - - 51 59 44 42 34 61 77 57 85 119 107 13Top of the World Hotel 27 23 44 33 11 9 9 9 10 10 10 9 22 22 20 25 25 21 25 24 2

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 127 

5.5.5 ASRC Education Contributions 

This section provides a brief description of some of the educational benefits provided by ASRC. In 

addition, some of the educational contributions of the village corporations are discussed. It is 

important to note that the educational benefits offered by ASRC and village corporations are available 

to eligible individuals living in Fairbanks, Anchorage and other areas outside the North Slope region. 

Consequently, the economic effects associated with these benefits extend beyond the boundaries of 

the North Slope. 

ASRC and its subsidiaries foster educational opportunities through the Arctic Education Foundation, 

(AEF), Eileen Paniegeo MacLean House, and Shareholder Development Programs. AEF, a non-profit 

entity of ASRC, was established in 1978 to support higher education at the university level and in 

specialized vocational training programs. AEF’s mission is to: 

...promote, develop, implement, sponsor and maintain programs of assistance for worthy and 

needy Iñupiat Natives of the Arctic Slope Region of Alaska, or descendants of such persons, 

so as to aid them in the furtherance of their education or vocational training (ASRC, 2003) 

In 1994, ASRC committed $7 million of income from NOL’s to fund an endowment for AEF. AEF 

spent over $8 million between 1988 and the end of 2002 in support of university and vocation 

training programs (Okakok, 2003).42 Approximately $500,000 has been spent on student support in 

2003 as of September 3 (Okakok, 2003). 

According to the AEF link on the ASRC Web site, an applicant for funding must be a U.S. citizen and 

resident and must verify that he or she is one of the following (ASRC, 2003): 

 A Northern Alaskan Iñupiat Native currently residing in the Arctic Slope Region of Alaska; or 

 An original ASRC shareholder; or 

 A direct lineal descendant of an original ASRC shareholder. 

In 1997, ASRC, through a partnership with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, designed, financed, 

constructed, and furnished the $1.8 million Eileen Paniegeo MacLean House. ASRC and others had 

identified a need for transitional housing for students coming to the large campus at the University of 

Alaska-Fairbanks from their rural villages on the North Slope. The purpose of the Eileen Paniegeo 

MacLean House is to improve recruitment, retention, and graduation of Alaska Native students 

(University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1998, 2001). Funding for the project was arranged through AEF and a 

$1.0 million endowment was provided through ASRC. 

According to ASRC’s 1998 Annual Report, one of its most notable accomplishments of the year was 

the creation of “Itqanaiyavik,” a joint venture between ASRC and BP Exploration to provide 

shareholders with engineering training and technical craft certifications. Seven individuals completed 

a summer civil engineering internship program at BP Exploration and then enrolled in engineering 

schools. Craft training takes place in pipefitting/welding and electrical/instruction. Up to 12 individuals 

can participate in each program. Additional support is provided by AEF through a contract with the 

Arctic Slope Native Association to provide supplemental support through BIA Higher Education grants 

and BIA Adult Vocational Training grants for students from all the villages except Barrow. 

The ASRC Land Department offers scholarships to shareholders who want to undertake a college 

degree in natural resource development. The scholarship is administered through the Arctic Education 

Foundation. The scholarships pay the tuition and other expenses of students accepted into a full-time 

 

42 An estimate of AEF expenditures before 1988 is unavailable because of the loss of records in a fire. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

128 Final

four-year degree program or graduate program in geology, petroleum engineering, or mineral 

engineering. The Land Department provides summer employment and acts as mentor for these 

students. There are currently two students enrolled in this program. 

In 2001, ASCG, Inc., a subsidiary of ASRC, initiated a Shareholder Career Development Program 

providing financial assistance for classes, on the job training, conferences, internships, workshops, and 

participation in career and technical associations. One purpose of the program is to raise shareholders 

in entry-level positions to more advanced and higher paying jobs. Such job promotions help 

shareholders advance their careers, and free entry-level positions for additional shareholders 

(Hartwell, 2001). 

5.5.6 Other Benefits Provided by Alaska Slope Regional Corporation 

This section lists some of the contributions ASRC has made to the economy of the North Slope that 

are more difficult to quantify. The list is not exhaustive and is simply intended to illustrate the range of 

economic-related activities that ASRC has been involved in over the years. 

 The early land claim initiatives of the Arctic Slope Native Association were partially financed by 

grants from the Presbyterian Church. In 1972, when Prudhoe Bay oil and gas operators blocked 

tax revenues for the NSB, a Presbyterian foundation purchased $150,000 of revenue anticipation 

notes that helped provide early operating funds for the Borough. The newly-formed ASRC 

voluntarily paid the $95,000 grant and repaid the tax anticipation notes to the Presbyterian 

Church foundation with interest. 

 In the early 1970s, transportation to and from most North Slope communities was very limited. 

To facilitate the movement of people and goods among villages ASRC arranged for chartered 

aircraft to fly from Barrow to Kaktovik and Point Lay once a week (Dupere and Associates, 1973). 

 In the 1970s, ASRC provided seed money for the engineering and regulatory approval needed to 

start a local telephone company for North Slope communities that lacked telephone service. 

Today, the Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative provides telecommunications services 

to Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Deadhorse-Prudhoe Bay, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, 

Point Lay, and Wainwright (Pounds, 2001). 

 Recently, ASRC, Sealaska Corporation, and nine other Native American organizations contributed 

$1 million each to capitalize the Native American Bank, which will focus on business, agricultural, 

and community economic development loans that benefit Native Americans (Bradner, 2002c). 

 In 1991, ASRC was authorized to establish a program that would provide elder shareholders a 

monthly cash benefit. The ASRC Board of Director’s established a grantor Settlement Trust in 

order to make monthly payments to shareholders who turned 65 on or before June 30, 1998. The 

Elders Settlement Trust Agreement was amended in 1999 to allow an extension of eligibility to 

shareholders who reach age 65 on or before December 31, 2004 (ASRC, 2001). The Trust allows 

ASRC to lower its tax liability and pay tax-free dividends to shareholders. In 2000, 2001, and 

2002, payments totaling $615,000, $645,000, and $675,000, respectively, were distributed to 

elder shareholders (ASRC, 2002). 

 In the mid-1990s, the Stock Department of ASRC provided assistance and training to North Slope 

village corporations in organizing shareholder record systems (ASRC, 1998). These record-keeping 

systems are needed by village corporations to track the current addresses of shareholders. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 129 

5.6 Employment by Alaska Native Corporations in the North Slope Borough 

Using available data, this section describes employment by Alaska Native corporations in the NSB. 

This employment data complements the previously discussed employment data provided by ASRC, 

because this data set is limited to employment of residents in the NSB. Table 5-9 shows the number 

of North Slope residents employed by ASRC and village corporations in 1981, 1988, 1993, and 1998. 

The data presented were obtained from a study prepared by Alaska Consultants, Inc. (1981) and 

census reports prepared by or for the NSB Department of Planning and Community Services 

(Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999, 2004; North Slope Borough Department of Planning and 

Community Services, 1989, 1995). 

The percentage of resident employment accounted for by Alaska Native corporations increased from 

approximately 11 percent in 1981 to about 17 percent in 1998. In Barrow, the largest community on 

the North Slope, the percentage increased from 7 percent in 1981 to just over 12 percent in 1998. 

About one-third of all working residents of Point Hope were employed by Native corporations in 

1981 and 1998, although the percentages were lower in the intervening years. 

Table 5-9. Employment of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and Village Corporations 

in the North Slope Borough, 1981, 1988, 1993, and 1998 

Location Iñupiat Non-Iñupiat 

Total Native 

Corporation 

Total Number 

of Jobs 

Native 

Corporation 

Employment as 

Percent of 

Total 

Employment 

North Slope Borough 

1998 315 92 407 2,418 16.8 

1993 247 57 304 1,943 15.6 

1988 256 55 311 2,506 12.4 

1981 - - 183 1,689 10.8 

Anaktuvuk Pass 

1998 13 3 16 80 20.0 

1993 24 2 24 97 24.7 

1988 15 1 16 132 12.1 

1981 - - 0 102 0 

Atqasuk 

1998 5 0 5 56 8.9 

1993 10 0 10 64 15.6 

1988 14 1 15 87 17.2 

1981 - - 0 45 0 

Barrow 

1998 128 61 189 1,541 12.3 

1993 119 48 167 1,210 13.8 

1988 104 31 135 1,567 8.6 

1981 - - 75 1,052 7.1 

Kaktovik 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

130 Final

Location Iñupiat Non-Iñupiat 

Total Native 

Corporation 

Total Number 

of Jobs 

Native 

Corporation 

Employment as 

Percent of 

Total 

Employment 

1998 16 1 17 76 22.4 

1993 11 1 12 64 18.8 

1988 17 0 17 107 15.9 

1981 - - 0 98 0 

Nuiqsut 

1998 26 7 33 124 26.6 

1993 19 0 19 96 19.8 

1988 21 1 22 146 15.1 

1981 - - 5 98 5.1 

Point Hope 

1998 64 11 75 222 33.8 

1993 36 3 37 202 18.3 

1988 20 1 21 172 12.2 

1981 - - 42 124 33.9 

Point Lay 

1998 10 0 10 80 12.5 

1993 2 0 2 60 3.3 

1988 10 1 11 64 17.2 

1981 - - 0 26 0 

Wainwright 

1998 53 9 62 239 25.9 

1993 28 3 31 150 20.7 

1988 55 19 74 231 32.0 

1981 - - 15 144 10.4 

Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981; Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999, 2004; North Slope Borough 

Department of Planning and Community Services, 1989, 1995. 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

5.6.1 Atqasuk Corporation 

Atqasuk Corporation is the village corporation established for Atqasuk. The Corporation owns 

approximately 73,000 acres of surface lands in and around Atqasuk (ASRC, 2003). 

The Atqasuk Corporation provides water, sewer and refuse services in the community (Alaska 

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). In addition, the 

Corporation owns the Atqasuk Restaurant and Hotel and Mead River Store, a local grocery and 

merchandise store. Another subsidiary, Atqasuk Fuel Division, sells propane, gas, diesel, and motor oil 

fuel (Arctic Development Council, 2003). In 1987, Atqasuk Corporation and SKW/Eskimos formed a 

joint venture called Atqasuk Constructors. To date, this company has completed projects worth $47.1 

million (SKW/Eskimos, 2003). Three of the six current business licenses issued in the community are 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 131 

for the Corporation (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 

2005a). 

Table 5-10 shows employment information for the Atqasuk Corporation and Atqasuk Constructors 

derived from available ES-202 unemployment insurance information. In 1977, the first year for which 

information is available, the Atqasuk Corporation had one employee. By 2002, according to the ES202 data, the Corporation had 24 employees. These addresses may be for an accounting service or 

company headquarters rather than the actual work location. In the employment estimates shown, and 

in subsequent tables with the same data source, the location of the reporting unit is not available and 

the employment estimates may include workers outside of the community. 

Table 5-10. Atqasuk Corporation and Subsidiary Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 

 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Atqasuk Corporation 1 2 6 4 4 4 7 8 8 10 13 10 9 

Atqasuk Constructors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 6 2 1 6 6 

 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Atqasuk Corporation 14 9 9 10 11 11 13 15 16 19 19 22 24 

Atqasuk Constructors 14 5 4 5 7 3 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 

Source: Alaska Department and Labor and Workforce Development 

5.6.2 Cully Corporation 

Cully Corporation is the Alaska Native village corporation for Point Lay. The Cully Corporation owns 

approximately 90,000 acres of surface lands in and around the community (ASRC, 2003b). As of 

2003, the Corporation has not paid any dividends to shareholders (Hendryx, 2003). Two of the three 

current business licenses issued to the community are for the Corporation (Alaska Department of 

Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

In 1973, the only full time job in the community was the land chief position of the Cully Corporation 

(Dupere and Associates, 1973). Today, the Corporation has from six to ten year-round employees in 

Point Lay (Hendryx, 2003). Two individuals hold administrative positions, while four employees 

operate the community’s water and sewer system. The Corporation is hiring additional workers on a 

week on/week off schedule to enable individuals to participate in subsistence activities. 

The Cully Corporation also employs two people in Anchorage who manage the Corporation’s 

construction company. In the past, this company has completed small construction projects for the 

NSB. However, as the Borough privatizes services and cuts back on expenditures, the Corporation 

anticipates fewer business opportunities on the North Slope and has shifted its focus to possible 

projects in Anchorage (Hendryx, 2003). 

In 1989, the Cully Corporation established a joint venture with SKW/Eskimos called Point Lay 

Constructors. To date, this partnership has completed projects worth $51.7 million (SWK/Eskimos, 

2003). 

Table 5-11 shows employment information for the Cully Corporation derived from ES-202 

unemployment insurance information. Employment information was not available for Point Lay 

Constructors. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

132 Final

Table 5-11. Cully Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1983-2002 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

28 9 15 6 6 3 0 0 0 - 1 1 1 1 2 5 4 6 12 6 

Source: Alaska Department and Labor and Workforce Development 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

5.6.3 Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation 

The Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation is the Alaska Native village corporation for Kaktovik. The 

Corporation owns approximately 92,000 acres of surface lands in and around the community (ASRC, 

2003b). All of the Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation’s land is within ANWR. In recent years, the 

Corporation has strongly supported legislation to open the coastal plain of ANWR to oil and gas 

development. 

The Kaktovik/Qunuyak Hotel is a subsidiary of the Corporation. In addition, the Corporation owns 

and operates the local general merchandise store in Kaktovik. In 1983, the Corporation formed a joint 

venture with SKW/Eskimos, Inc. called Kaktovik Constructors. To date, the joint venture has 

completed projects worth $81.4 million (SWK/Eskimos, 2003). Two of the 19 current business 

licenses issued to the community are for the Corporation (Alaska Department of Commerce, 

Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

ES-202 employment data are only available for 2000, 2001, and 2002, when average annual 

employment was 13, 14, and 15, respectively. 

5.6.4 Kuukpik Corporation 

The Kuukpik Corporation is the Alaska Native Village Corporation of Nuiqsut. The Corporation owns 

approximately 146,000 acres of surface lands in and around the community (ASRC, 2003b). This 

surface estate includes approximately 50 percent of the Alpine Oil Field, which began production in 

late 2001. As part of the agreement between Kuukpik Corporation and ARCO’s (now ConocoPhillips) 

Alpine Development Project, a natural gas pipline is being constructed to provide heating and power 

generation for the community. The natural gas is provided at no cost to local residents. The Kuukpik 

Corporation also received a substantial signing bonus, annual lease payments, and employment 

opportunities for community residents. 

The Corporation owns the hardware store and Kuukpik Arctic Catering, a local restaurant, and a hotel 

are subsidiaries of the Corporation. At least 2 of the 11 current business licenses issued to the 

community are for the Corporation (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic 

Development, 2005a). In 1991, Kuukpik Corporation formed a joint venture with SKW/Eskimos, Inc. 

called Nuiqsut Constructors. While the joint venture was active, it completed projects worth $146.5 

million (SKW/Eskimos, 2003). Currently, the Kuukpik Corporation is conducting construction work 

independently. Nearly one-third of the work force in Nuiqsut is employed in the private sector, 

mostly by the Corporation and the construction industry (ASRC, 2003b). 

Table 5-12 provides an estimate of the number of individuals employed by the Kuukpik Corporation 

from 1977 to 2002 based on ES-202 unemployment insurance data. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 133 

Table 5-12. Kuukpik Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 

10 13 6 46 29 27 29 16 18 16 14 18 23 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

23 28 30 30 31 30 26 32 36 52 27 34 3 

Source: Alaska Department and Labor and Workforce Development 

5.6.5 Nunamiut Corporation 

Nunamiut Corporation is the Alaska Native village corporation of Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska with a 

population of 282 according to the 2000 U.S. Census. The Nunamiut Corporation owns 

approximately 92,000 acres of surface lands in and around the community (ASRC, 2003b). 

In 1973, employment was limited to two teaching positions, a school janitor, a school cook, a 

postmaster, and workers in a few small village stores (Dupere and Associates, Inc., 1973). Some 

members of the community worked seasonally for the Bureau of Land Management fighting fires. 

The village corporation provides several services for the community including provision of cable 

service (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). The 

Nunamiut Store and Nunamiut Camp, a hotel and restaurant complex, are subsidiaries of the 

Nunamiut Corporation. The corporation also sells fuel (Arctic Development Council, 2003). Two of 

the 10 current business licenses issued to the community are for the Corporation (Alaska Department 

of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

Anaktuvuk Pass Constructors, a joint venture between the Nunamiut Corporation and SKW/Eskimos 

has completed $47.1 million in projects (SKW/Eskimos, 2003). 

Table 5-13 shows employment estimates for the Nunamiut Corporation and Anaktuvuk Pass 

Constructors based on ES-202 unemployment insurance data. 

Table 5-13. Nunamiut Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 

 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Nunamiut Corporation - - - 2 8 13 10 6 7 7 11 9 17 

Anaktuvuk Pass Constructors - - - - - - 0 2 3 2 2 2 2 

 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Nunamiut Corporation 23 17 16 13 13 13 12 14 12 15 14 13 15 

Anaktuvuk Pass Constructors 2 3 2 8 12 16 10 12 8 13 0 0 0 

Source: Alaska Department and Labor and Workforce Development 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

5.6.6 Olgoonik Corporation 

Olgoonik Corporation is the Iñupiat Alaska Native Village Corporation of Wainwright. The Olgoonik 

Corporation owns the surface estate to approximately 115,000 acres and has 412 shareholders 

(Olgoonik, 2003). ASRC provided both management assistance and start-up capital for the formation 

of Olgoonik Corporation. ASRC also assisted with the selection of Olgoonik Corporation lands. 

The first business venture of the Olgoonik Corporation was the purchase of fuel storage tanks from the 

co-op store in 1974-1975. Financing for the venture came from the Alaska Native Fund. A source of 

fuel was needed for 18 new houses and the recently constructed elementary school. The co-op did 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

134 Final

not have the capital resources available to maintain an adequate fuel supply for the new buildings 

(Chilkat Institute 1985). Olgoonik Corporation’s first order was for 32,000 gallons of fuel. However, 

by 1982 the annual shipment was up to 800,000 gallons. The corporation also opened a small store 

where the fuel was sold locally. 

By 1977, major construction improvement projects were underway in the community. The 

corporation bought heavy construction equipment to lease to the contractor building local roads. 

Next, the corporation hired a mechanic and then built a garage in order to maintain the equipment. 

The corporation also negotiated with the NSB to form joint ventures to provide labor for construction 

projects. As of 1983 (Chilkat Institute 1985), these joint ventures were the major source of income for 

the Olgoonik Corporation. 

In 1973, 20 residents of Wainwright had full time employment: 2 employees of the waterworks, 3 at 

the local store, 2 maintenance men for the school, a minister, a postmaster, 2 people who worked at 

the DEW line site, 4 teacher’s aides, and 4 people working with the Head Start program (Dupere and 

Associates, Inc., 1973). 

Under the provisions of 14(c)3 of ANCSA, village corporations are required to reconvey over 1,200 

acres to the local municipal government for future expansion. The Olgoonik conveyed approximately 

1,000 acres of land immediately adjacent to the townsite of the City of Wainwright in 1976. 

According to the DCCED website, the transfer of final acreage is “in process,” but no agreement has 

been signed. 

The corporation provides many services for Wainwright, including equipment maintenance and 

management and operation of the water and sewer utility system. Two of the ten current business 

licenses issued to the community are for the Corporation (Alaska Department of Commerce, 

Community and Economic Development, 2005a). The Corporation operates a hotel, restaurant, fuel 

sales, and a general store in Wainwright. From 1995 through 2000, Olgoonik Corporation and its 

subsidiaries have been involved in five contracts for the construction, operation, and management of 

the Wainwright Water and Sewer Utility Projects. Phase I in 1995 was a $16 million project and 

Phase II in 1997 was a $29 million project. 

Olgoonik Corporation has organized a holding company and four for-profit subsidiaries. The holding 

company, Olgoonik Development, LLC with an office in Anchorage, provides management services 

for all of the subsidiaries including accounting, administrative, contracts, human resources, 

information and technology records, marketing, policies and procedures, purchasing and 

procurement, and risk management. 

The KUK Construction, LLC has taken over the Olgoonik construction division and has participated as 

a majority partner in the joint venture of Wainwright Constructors. Wainwright Constructors has 

participated in more than $50 million of capital improvement projects in Wainwright. Wainwright 

Constructors is a joint venture partnership between the Olgoonik Corporation and SKW/Eskimos, Inc., 

which was formed in 1985, and has $69.5 million in completed projects (SKW/Eskimos, 2003). KUK 

Construction, LLC has constructed two four-bedroom and three three-bedroom houses for the NSB 

with a contract value of $1,020,000. A contract for upgrades to the Wainwright power plant was 

valued at $1,127,275. 

Olgoonik Management Services LLC (OMS) is a start up company with one employee established in 

1999. OMS currently has a teaming agreement to provide operational support for the operations of a 

Job Corps contractor. OMS is certified as a SBA 8(a) business and its HUBZone application is in the 

final certification approval stages. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 135 

O.E.S. Inc., an environmental services company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Olgoonik 

Corporation. According to O.E.S.’s statement of qualifications, O.E.S. was incorporated in 1997 to 

meet the environmental challenges of the villages located within the NSB. 

Table 5-14 shows employment information for Olgoonik Corporation and some of its subsidiaries 

based on ES-202 unemployment insurance data. 

Table 5-14. Olgoonik Corporation and Subsidiary Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 

 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Olgoonik Corporation - - - 4 18 46 45 33 30 23 26 37 36 

 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Bowhead Inc. 33 30 28 26 22 20 30 43 43 84 41 40 37 

Bowhead Manufacturing 

Company - - 7 8 4 5 7 6 7 6 4 0 - 

Kuk Construction LLC - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

Olgoonik Development LLC - - - - - - - - - - - 7 7 

O.E.S., Inc. - - - - - - - - - - - 1 4 

Olgoonik Logistics LLC - - - - - - - - - - 14 2 4 

Olgoonik Management 

Services - - - - - - - - - - - 2 3 

Source: Alaska Department and Labor and Workforce Development 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

5.6.7 Tikigaq Corporation 

The Tikigaq Corporation is the Alaska Native village corporation of Point Hope. The corporation was 

formerly known as the Tigara Corporation. The Corporation has 1,000 shareholders, 850 of whom 

live in the village (Tikigaq Corporation, 2003). Tikigaq Corporation owns the surface estate to 

approximately 138,000 acres in and around the community of Point Hope (ASRC, 2003b). 

In 1973, full-time employment in the community was limited to four teaching positions, four teaching 

aids, two maintenance men, a cook, employment at the electric cooperative system, the local Native 

store, and several social service programs (Dupere and Associates, Inc., 1973). About 12 individuals in 

the community were construction union members and worked outside of the community each 

summer. 

Tikigaq Corporation owns the Point Hope Native Store and fuel station (Arctic Development Council, 

2003). The Whalers Inn in Point Hope is a subsidiary (Arctic Development Council, 2003). At least 2 

of the 12 current business licenses in Point Hope are for the Corporation (Alaska Department of 

Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005a). 

According to the Summer 2002 Tikigaq Corporate Newsletter, Tikigaq changed the direction of its 

core business in 2000 and began the transition into a SBA 8(a) certified business. The Tikigaq 

Corporation has SBA 8(a) certified subsidiaries in the fields of construction, engineering, and 

environmental services. These subsidiaries include Aglaq Construction Enterprises, Inc., Agviq 

Environmental, and Tikigaq Technology Services. 

The Tikigaq Corporation has offices in Anchorage and Point Hope. Tikigaq Corporation currently has 

a 48 percent shareholder-hire ratio in its Alaska operations (Cheatham, 2003). The company provides 

jobs in the village in construction, fuel services, retail operations of the store, and maintenance and 

operation. The corporation provides hazardous materials worker training, operator training, and other 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

136 Final

trades training so that shareholders can find employment during summer construction seasons. Over 

54 hazardous material trained shareholders have been employed on company projects for the past 

three years at remote sites (Cheatham, 2003). 

The Corporation also provides travel assistance, burial assistance, and subsidizes prices in the village 

store, fuel services, and Internet costs. Additional services such as sponsorships and emergency 

assistance are provided to shareholders and their families on a case-by-case basis. In addition, 

employees are required to volunteer 30 minutes a week working with a student in the school 

(Cheatham, 2003). 

Table 5-15 shows employment estimates for the Tikigaq Corporation and the Tikigak/Conam Joint 

Venture generated from ES-202 unemployment data. 

Table 5-15. Tikigak Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 

 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Tikigak Corporation - - - - - - - - - 7 33 24 36 

 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Tikigak Corporation 45 45 51 51 55 58 65 64 63 71 92 78 79 

Tikigak/Conam - - - - - 8 24 17 56 52 5 - 4 

Source: Alaska Department and Labor and Workforce Development 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

5.6.8 Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation 

Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation (UIC) is the Native village corporation in Barrow. UIC has more than 

2,000 shareholders. Like ASRC, UIC has numerous subsidiaries; some of the subsidiaries are based in 

the NSB and mainly employ individuals who reside in the Borough, but many of the subsidiaries are 

based outside of the North Slope region. According to the UIC Construction web page, the Ukpeagvik 

Iñupiat Corporation family of companies includes Bowhead Transportation, UIC Construction, LCMF 

Inc., and Umiaklik Insurance Company. According to the Arctic Development Corporation (2003), 

UIC Utilities and UIC Construction in Barrow are also subsidiaries of UIC. 

Bowhead Transportation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation and began 

operation in August 27, 1982 (Bowhead Transportation, 2003). Bowhead Transportation is certified as 

a SBA 8(a) corporation. The company has provided barge service to the coastal villages of the NSB for 

over 14 years. In 1995, it expanded its service area to include Kotzebue and contract service to 

Westward Alaska. The expansion entailed establishment of a separate company—Qayg Marine, 

LLC—a partnership with Sea Coast Towing (Bowhead Transportation, 2003). Bowhead Transportation 

has offices in Anchorage and Seattle and a seasonal office in Barrow. The company also operates in 

the Puget Sound area of Washington. 

Bowhead Transportation has established an Alaska Native SBA 8(a) corporation with Eagle Support 

Services Corporation. The joint venture, Bowhead Eagle, LLC, provides support services for the 

programs and interests of the U.S. National Guard (Eagle, 2003). Bowhead Support Services is also an 

Alaska Native SBA 8(a) corporation. It provides information technology support services to 

government agencies. The company’s headquarters is in Dahlgren, Virginia. 

Bowhead Manufacturing Company, LLC is another Alaska Native SBA 8(a) corporation that was 

formed in 2001 under the Bowhead Holding Company. It manufactures and distributes 

environmental products through direct mail (Bowhead Manufacturing Company, 2003). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 137 

UIC Construction, LLC (UICC) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harpoon Construction Group, Inc. 

which, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of UIC. UIC Construction provides construction services 

and has completed more than $600 million of projects—many of them on the North Slope. UICC was 

incorporated in 1978. In 1986, UICC entered into a joint venture with SKW/Eskimos, LLC and has 

been the managing partner for more than $175 million of utility projects. The joint venture has 

maintained a 75 percent local NSB resident hire on these projects. 

LCMF, LLC provides architectural, civil and structural engineering, and surveying services and is a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Barrow Technical Services, Inc., which is a UIC company. LCMF has 36 

employees with 5 in Barrow. UIC established a joint venture between Barrow Technical Services and 

LCMF in 1986. In 1996, UIC purchased LCMF and merged it with Barrow Technical Services. 

Table 5-16 shows estimates of employment of the Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation and some of its 

subsidiaries based on ES-202 unemployment data. 

Table 5-16. Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation Average Annual Employment, 1977-2002 

 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation 2 2 4 9 13 19 38 46 53 42 40 40 40 

Umialik Insurance Co - - - - 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 8 9 

 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation 45 45 51 51 55 58 65 64 63 71 92 78 79 

Barrow Technical Services Inc - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 

Harpoon Construction Group Inc - - - - - - - - - - - 33 176 

UIC Development Co Inc - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 

Umialik Insurance Co 12 13 14 18 21 22 23 22 22 23 23 27 31 

Source: Alaska Department and Labor and Workforce Development 

- Data were unavailable for this report 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

138 Final
Final 139 

6 The Role of Other Government and Non-profit Organizations and 

the Economic Linkages among Entities 

In previous chapters, the economic roles of the Borough government, city governments, and for-profit 

Native corporations were discussed. This section adds to this discussion the roles of the federal 

government, state government, tribal governments, and non-profit organizations. In addition, this 

section provides an overview of the important economic linkages among government and non-profit 

entities on the North Slope. 

6.1 The Role of the Federal Government 

The federal government performs several functions that affect the economy and the communities in 

the NSB. The following section discusses these various functions and provides historical information 

where data are available. 

6.1.1 Federal Land Ownership and Management 

Before Alaska achieved statehood, the only governmental presence on the North Slope was federal. 

As noted in Chapter 2, the presence of the BIA and U.S. military in the region resulted in employment 

opportunities for North Slope residents and a modicum of public services. In addition, the federal 

government was, and continues to be, a major landowner on the North Slope. Over half of the land 

within the NSB is owned by the federal government (NSB, 2005). Federal lands include areas that are 

known to have oil and gas reserves, such as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Management decisions by federal agencies regarding development 

and/or conservation of these federal lands affect the pace and patterns of economic change on the 

North Slope; as federal actions (or non-actions) resulting from these decisions ultimately influence 

access to cash (i.e., monies in the form of industry tax payments, lease payments, and federal grants) 

and non-cash resources (subsistence resources). As described in Chapter 4, for example, the State of 

Alaska receives 50 percent of federal revenues from oil and gas lease sales located in the NPR-A. 

Those revenues are deposited into the NPR-A Special Revenue Fund to provide grants to 

communities impacted by oil and gas development. From 1987 to 2005, several North Slope 

communities and the NSB have been awarded a total of approximately $68.7 million in Impact 

Mitigation Grants for various community projects (Figure 6-1). In 2000 and 2004, NPR-A grants 

exceeded $20 million; the highest grants in those two years were for the “Village Power 

Plant/Electrical Distribution & Waste Heat Conversion Upgrade” and the “Barrow Sewage Treatment 

Facility”, respectively. The lists of project grants and dollar amounts by community are provided in 

Table 6-1 through Table 6-5. These tables show the amount of dollar flows into each of the 

communities and the types of projects funded. Grants awarded to the cities are typically administered 

by the NSB. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

140 Final

Figure 6-1. Total Amount of NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the North Slope Borough and North 

Slope Communities, 1987-2005 

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

Millions

1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 

Table 6-1. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the City of Atqasuk, 1987-2004 

Year Project Description Amount ($) 

1987 Community Center Operations and Maintenance $99,000 

1987 Community Center Expansion $500,000 

1987 Basic Local Government Operations $90,000 

1990 Basic Local Government Operations $79,130 

1990 Community Center Planning and Operations $96,982 

1991 Community Center Operations and Maintenance $21,181 

1992 Basic Local Government Assistance $69,802 

1992 Community Center Operations and Maintenance $14,328 

1993 Basic Local Government Assistance $50,000 

1994 Basic Local Government Assistance $4,167 

1995 Basic Local Government Assistance $8,172 

2000 Community Center Maintenance and Operations $90,000 

2000 Basic Local Government Operations $109,000 

2003 Renovate Recreation Center $49,000 

2003 City Operations $249,057 

2004 Local Government & Community Center Operations & Maintenance $368,621 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 141 

Table 6-2. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the City of Barrow, 1987-2005 

Year Project Description Amount ($) 

1987 Boat Ramps $825,000 

1990 Cultural Center Planning $48,250 

1990 Basic Local Government Assistance $74,788 

1990 City’s Public Facilities Operations and Maintenance $238,843 

1991 Volunteer Fire Department Operations $133,980 

1991 Search and Rescue Operations $104,000 

1991 City Facilities Operations and Maintenance $49,319 

1992 Public Facilities Operations and Maintenance $146,951 

1993 Public Facilities Operations and Maintenance $200,000 

1994 Public Facilities Operations and Maintenance $6,440 

1995 Public Facilities Operations and Maintenance $7,662 

2000 Public Facilities - Maintenance and Operations $650,000 

2000 Renovation/Upgrade of Barrow Teen Center and Community Center $1,000,000 

2000 Design, Construction & Purchase Retractable Boat Ramp $1,000,000 

2000 Maintenance Building Construction $630,000 

2002 Public Facilities - Maintenance and Operation $334,540 

2003 Summer Youth Program $50,000 

2003 Public Facilities Operations $350,000 

2004 Renovate Multi-Purpose Facility $53,719 

2004 Public Facilities Operations and Maintenance $420,705 

2004 Recreation Building Addition Feasibility $40,000 

2004 Basic Local Government Operations and Maintenance $1,309,806 

2004 Quest Mentorship Program with KBRW $265,000 

2004 Addition to Cemetery Road $44,230 

2005 Tuzzy Library $180,000 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

142 Final

Table 6-3. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the City of Nuiqsut, 1987-2005 

Year Project Description Amount ($) 

1987 Dry Boat Storage $551,395 

1987 Basic Local Government Operations $109,250 

1990 Community Center/City Hall Operations and Maintenance $57,900 

1991 Boat Storage Operations and Maintenance $30,500 

1992 Basic Local Government Assistance $49,963 

1992 Utilities Operations and Maintenance $5,878 

1993 Basic Local Government Assistance $90,000 

1994 Basic Local Government Assistance $4,167 

1995 Basic Local Government Assistance $3,320 

2000 Basic Government Operation/Maintenance $200,000 

2000 Various Community Projects $61,078 

2000 Install Graveyard Fencing $111,369 

2002 Basic Government Operations and Maintenance $200,000 

2005 Local Government Operations $250,000 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 

Table 6-4. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the City of Wainwright, 1987-1995 

Year Project Description Amount ($) 

1987 Boat Ramp Construction $550,000 

1987 Boat Ramp Planning $61,380 

1990 Basic Local Government Operations $82,961 

1990 Community Center Operations and Maintenance $157,891 

1991 Community Center Operations and Maintenance $51,020 

1992 Basic Local Government Assistance $66,128 

1992 Community Center Operations and Maintenance $14,328 

1993 Basic Local Government Assistance $107,126 

1994 Basic Local Government Assistance $4,167 

1995 Basic Local Government Assistance $6,385 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 143 

Table 6-5. NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grants Awarded to the North Slope Borough, 1987-2005 

Year Project Description Amount ($) 

1987 Barrow - Residential Care $539,637 

1987 Barrow - Juvenile Detention $3,000,000 

1987 Comprehensive Subsistence Management Plan $232,500 

1989 Alcohol and Drug Abuse Facility $937,000 

1991 Arctic Women in Crisis $200,000 

2000 Village Power Plant/Electrical Distribution & Waste Heat Conversion Upgrade $10,069,367 

2000 All Infrastructures Services Study $1,500,000 

2000 Nuiqsut Above Ground Service Connections $2,100,000 

2000 Nuiqsut Police Officer for 3 years $100,000 

2000 Wainwright Community Center Renovations $191,283 

2000 Fire Department Equipment & Training $1,114,150 

2000 Harvest Monitoring: Subsistence Documentation Project $100,000 

2000 Survey & Inventory of Fish Resources in the Lakes & Streams of Eastern NPRA $150,000 

2000 Tracking & Analysis of Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Herd Movement and Distribution $150,000 

2000 Waterfowl Surveys $150,000 

2000 Nuiqsut Natural Gas Piping Distribution $3,800,000 

2000 Nuiqsut Natural Gas Home/Building Conversion $2,200,000 

2000 Nuiqsut Natural Gas Pipeline $1,580,000 

2000 Nuiqsut City Hall/Kisik Center Renovation $943,753 

2002 Harvest Monitoring , Subsistence Documentation $100,000 

2002 Waterfowl Surveys $150,000 

2002 Tracking & Analysis of the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Herd $150,000 

2002 Wainwright Basic Operations $250,000 

2002 Nuiqsut Cultural Center Operations $288,000 

2002 Nuiqsut Teen Center Operation and Maintenance $121,310 

2002 Nuiqsut Wooden Deck Ball Court Construction $30,000 

2002 Nuiqsut Emergency Hunting Shelters Construction $60,000 

2003 Wainwright Basic Operations $250,000 

2003 Nuiqsut Natural Gas Project $450,000 

2003 Capacity Building $100,000 

2003 Mayor’s Workforce Job Training Program $188,048 

2004 Nuiqsut Natural Gas Upstream Conditioner $2,000,000 

2004 Waterfowl in NPRA Continuation $443,619 

2004 Arctic Fox Satellite Project $316,582 

2004 Caribou Movements & Distribution $359,245 

2004 Survey and Inventory of Fish Resources $362,931 

2004 Fish Petroleum Hydrocarbon Study $405,659 

2004 Subsistence Harvest Monitoring $188,030 

2004 Electric Thermal Oxidation/Waste Heat $1,500,000 

2004 Grant Oversight and Supervision $213,418 

2004 Volunteer Search and Rescue Equipment $565,425 

2004 Fire Department Equipment Upgrades $250,276 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

144 Final

Year Project Description Amount ($) 

2004 Barrow Sewage Treatment Facility $10,000,000 

2004 Emergency Radio Communications $1,550,570 

2004 Police Department Facilities and Training $728,999 

2004 Telecommunications System Update $156,145 

2004 Research Equipment for NPR-A Activities $250,000 

2004 Barrow School Resource Officers $237,240 

2004 NPR-A Village School Counselors $435,736 

2004 Project Compliance and Fiscal Coordinator $198,250 

2004 Childcare/Learning Center/Training $56,123 

2004 Village Summer Recreation Program $121,374 

2004 Mayor’s Job Program $653,929 

2004 Workforce Development Program $1,515,825 

2005 Wainwright Local Government Operations $250,000 

2005 Barrow Allied Health Care Training Program $320,000 

2005 Social and Cultural Impacts Study $300,586 

2005 Oil/Gas Development Comprehensive Plan $400,000 

2005 School Counselors Extended Program $205,000 

2005 School Resource Officers $125,000 

2005 School Based Programs $500,000 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 

6.1.2 Federal Employment 

The federal government provides direct employment in the region. Prior to the formation of the 

Borough, the federal government provided most of the year-round jobs in the region. According to 

historical accounts, there were virtually no cash paying, steady-wage type jobs on the North Slope 

until the Navy began petroleum exploration in the 1940s in the Naval Petroleum Reserve IV between 

Barrow and the Brooks Range (now known as the NPR-A). Because of the Navy’s petroleum 

exploration program, the population of Barrow increased as opportunities for employment as guides 

and construction laborers grew. In the 1950s, some additional employment was provided by 

construction and operation of the distant early warning (DEW) radar sites (NRC, 2003). Figure 6-2 

shows the historical trend in federal employment on the North Slope from 1968 to 2003. These 

estimates are based on the number of jobs by place of work (includes resident and non-resident 

employment). From 1969 to 1975, federal jobs on the North Slope almost tripled from fewer than a 

hundred jobs to almost 300. After 1975, besides the DEW site jobs being eliminated, the regional 

government (NSB) took over several federal functions, and eventually federal jobs on the North Slope 

dwindled. Today, there are only about 25 federal jobs based in the North Slope region. The federal 

government pays about $1.5 million in wages and salaries for federal operations in the region (CFFR 

data, U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Federal agencies currently operating in the region include the U.S. 

Postal Service, National Park Service (Department of the Interior), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (Department of Commerce), General Services Administration, Transportation Security 

Administration (U.S. Department of Transportation), and the Arctic Research Commission (DOLWD, 

2005). In contrast, the number of state and local government jobs grew substantially from 1968 to 

2003. In 1968, there were only 20 combined state and local government jobs in the region; by 2003, 

there were 62 state jobs and more than 1,800 local government jobs recorded. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 145 

Figure 6-2. Employment in Federal Agencies, North Slope Borough, 1968-2003 

 

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development

6.1.3 Federal Spending 

The federal government is a source of revenue for the region, providing federal dollars in the form of 

grants (i.e., block, formula, project, and cooperative agreements), procurement contracts, 

retirement/disability payments for individuals, other direct payments to individuals, salaries and 

wages, and direct payments other than for individuals. 

Federal dollars flow into the North Slope region in various ways, either directly—to individuals living 

on the North Slope, local governments (the NSB and city governments), and local non-profit 

organizations—or indirectly through the state government. The following describes some of important 

types of federal funding that flow into the North Slope region: 

 Formula grants are distributed to state and local governments to assist in implementing federal 

policies in areas such as health, transportation, and education. The amount each governmental 

entity receives is determined by mathematical formulas that use factors, such as population, 

poverty, growth, income, etc. 

 Project grants are usually awarded to tribes, non-profits, businesses, individuals, school districts, 

universities, and the state government for specific projects that usually have an explicit deadline. 

 A block grant is a large sum of money granted by the federal government to a regional 

government with only general provisions as to the way it is to be spent, allowing states an 

opportunity to develop programs and policies based on local needs rather than a one-size-fits-all 

federal perspective. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

146 Final

 A cooperative agreement is used instead of a grant when substantial involvement is expected 

between the executive agency and the state, local government or other recipient when carrying 

out the activity contemplated in the agreement. 

 Direct payments to individuals. The federal government also gives money directly to North Slope 

residents in the form of wages and salaries, Social Security benefits, Medicare, unemployment 

insurance, federal retirement, workers’ compensation, food stamps and other benefits prescribed 

by federal law. 

 Direct Payments other than to Individuals. Aside from direct payments to individuals, the federal 

government also makes direct payments to communities businesses, tribes, non-profits, and other 

organizations as subsidies, transfers, or entitlements. The largest programs making direct payments 

are for tribal self-governance, Indian Housing, and Essential Air Service 

Federal expenditures that fall under these categories are reported in the annual Consolidated Federal 

Funds Report. 43 Annual federal expenditures or obligations and the relative contribution of each 

source or category to total federal spending in the region from 1983 to 2003 are shown in Figure 6-3. 

The federal government spent about $68.5 million on the North Slope in 2003; grants accounted for 

49 percent of the spending, and procurement contracts accounted for 44 percent of the spending. 

Historically, grants and federal procurements have accounted for at least half of federal spending in 

the region. 

Figure 6-4 shows federal spending on grants and federal procurements from 1983 to 2003. Federal 

procurement contracts were highest in 1994, with $31 million dollars worth of Department of 

Defense contracts. Grant awards were highest in 2002. Six federal programs on education, health, 

arctic research, and highway construction received at least $1 million in funding that year, including: 

1) Impact Aid ($9.02 million); 2) Indian Health Services Health Management Development Program 

($7.94 million); 3) Medical Assistance Program ($5.58 million); 4) Coastal Zone Management 

Administration Awards ($1.94 million); 4) Polar Programs ($1.79 million); 5) Highway Planning and 

Construction ($1.46 million); 5) Fund for the Improvement of Education ($1 million); and 6) Alaska 

Native Educational Programs ($1 million). 

 

43 The Consolidated Federal Funds Report is a presentation of federal expenditures or obligations in state, 

county, and sub-county areas of the United States. Expenditure data include the following categories: grants, 

salaries and wages, procurement contracts, direct payments for individuals, other direct payments, direct loans, 

guaranteed or insured loans, and insurance. Dollar amounts reported are either actual expenditures or 

obligations. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 147 

Figure 6-3. Federal Spending, North Slope Borough, 1983-2003 

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

19831985198719891991199319951997199920012003

Millions

Procurement Contracts

Grants (Block, Formula, Project,

and Cooperative Agreements

Salaries and Wages

Retirement/Disability Payments

for Individuals

Other Direct Payments to

Individuals

Direct Payments other than for

Individuals

Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report; U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 6-4. Federal Spending on Grants and Procurement Contracts, North Slope Borough, 1983-2003 

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Millions

Grants Procurement Contracts

Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report, U.S. Census Bureau 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

148 Final

It should be noted that in comparison with other rural regions in Alaska, the NSB actually has received 

less federal support. In 2002, for example, federal grant funding ranged from a low of $6.22 million in 

Wade Hampton to a high $176.69 million in Bethel. The NSB received the second lowest grant 

funding at $27.39 million (Figure 6-5). On a per capita basis, as shown in Table 6-6, the North Slope 

Borough ranks low in federal spending compared to other remote rural Census areas. 

An organizational study of the NSB by Information Insights (2002) suggested that the Borough “seek 

state and federal funding to support traditional state and federal responsibilities.” The study 

recommended that the NSB begin discussions with federal and state agencies to either give back 

services to the appropriate governmental agencies or to receive funding for the services usually 

provided by the federal and/or state government in other areas. However, the study also noted that 

constraints on the state budget may impede these attempts. 

Figure 6-5. Federal Expenditures in Remote Rural Census Areas 

including the North Slope Borough, 2002 

0

50

100

150

200

250

Millions of dollars

Procurement Wages Transfers Grants

Grants 176.69 54.59 52.3 42.09 35.25 27.39 6.22

Transfers 18.67 4.15 8.6 10.15 8.26 7.23 3.83

Wages 8.32 6.17 3.98 2.08 2.91 1.73 1.51

Procurement 5.28 4.15 3.79 1.8 2.91 8.85 0.64

Bethel Nome Northwest 

Arctic

Wade 

Hampton Dillingham North Slope Lake and Peninsula

Source: ISER, 2004; Consolidated Federal Funds Report. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 149 

Table 6-6. Per Capita Federal Expenditures in Remote Rural Census Areas including the North Slope 

Borough, 2002 

Borough/Census Area Amount 

Bethel $13,055 

Dillingham $10,022 

Northwest Arctic $9,527 

Wade Hampton $7,985 

Nome $7,510 

Lake and Peninsula $6,692 

North Slope $6,121 

Source: Per capita federal spending was estimated using information from the ISER (2004) report and population 

estimates based on U.S. Census data as reported by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development. 

6.2 The Role of the State Government 

The State of Alaska, like the federal government, owns and manages lands on the North Slope, 

provides employment and income to the region, funds various programs and special projects, and 

administers several federal programs in North Slope communities. 

6.2.1 State Land Ownership and Management 

The area between the NPR-A and Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is primarily made up of stateowned lands (Figure 6-6). The state, through the Department of Natural Resources, manages state oil 

and gas leases in the area. Most oil production on the North Slope takes place on state lands (in the 

general area of Prudhoe Bay). There are 11 million acres in active lease plan areas and 3.9 million 

acres in existing leases. As a result of these leases, the state and NSB receive significant amounts of 

payments to support government operations. However, these leases also have the potential to 

significantly change the way of life of North Slope residents. The expansion of oil and gas 

infrastructure into areas important for subsistence activities is of particular concern to Borough 

residents. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

150 Final

Figure 6-6. Land ownership on the North Slope 

Source: U.S. Government Accounting Office (adapted from a Bureau of Land Management map); available at 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02357.pdf

Notes: The areas designated in the map as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, and the area titled “Mostly State Lands” also contain some Alaska Native lands. Finally, the area on the 

far left portion of the map labeled “Mostly Native Lands” also includes some state and federal lands. 

6.2.2 State Employment 

Figure 6-7 shows the number of state government jobs in the NSB from 1980 to 2003. As stated 

earlier, there were only 20 local and state government jobs in 1968 (historical data show combined 

local and state employment estimates for the years 1968 to 1979), by 1980, the number of state jobs 

rose to about 40. Currently, there are about sixty state jobs recorded in the North Slope region, and 

the state pays about $3.6 million in wages per year. The following state agencies currently provide 

employment on the North Slope: Legislative Affairs Agency, Department of Administration, Alaska 

Court System (NC41), Department of Law, Department of Corrections, Department of Public Safety, 

Department of Health and Social Services, Department of Environmental Conservation, Department 

of Fish and Game, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the University of Alaska. In 

2003, state employment only accounted for 3 percent of government jobs in the region; local 

government jobs accounted for 96 percent and federal jobs accounted for 1 percent of total public 

sector jobs. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 151 

Figure 6-7. State Employment, North Slope Borough, 1980-2003 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

6.2.3 State Spending 

The State of Alaska, through the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 

administers several state and federal grants and revenue sharing programs that provide financial 

assistance to regional and local governments. The State’s Community Funding Database provides 

historical information on grants and revenue sharing funds from fiscal year 1981 through 2006. Total 

amounts of State-administered grants and funds awarded to the NSB and North Slope communities 

are shown in Figure 6-8. The spikes in fiscal year 2000, 2004, and 2006 are due to NPR-A grants 

(which are pass-through funds from the federal government). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

152 Final

Figure 6-8. State of Alaska Administered Grants and Revenue Sharing Funds Received by the North Slope 

Borough and North Slope Communities, FY 1981-2006 

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

1981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005

Millions

Source: Community Funding Database, Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic 

Development 

Figure 6-9 shows the total amount by type of grant, adding annual state-administered grants and funds 

received by the NSB and its communities from fiscal year 1981 to 2006. Historically, looking at data 

for the years available, the NPR-A funds and legislative appropriation account for about 95 percent of 

total state-administered funds awarded to the Borough and its communities. The Community Funding 

Database tracks the amount of dollars awarded per year for the following sources or types of grants 

(most of these grants are federal pass throughs administered by the state): 

 Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP): Under this program, federal funds are awarded to 

“coastal districts” (municipalities and coastal resource service areas) for coastal management 

activities and community planning assistance. The amounts awarded annually range from 

$38,250 for large boroughs to $6,000 for cities. The federal government provides a total of about 

$1 million annually to be allocated by the state to various coastal communities. The NSB and 

North Slope communities received a total of $264,000 from 2002 to 2005. 

 Capital Matching Grants: Eligible projects for this program include “capital projects,” which are 

defined by Alaska Statue as a project with a cost exceeding $10,000 to acquire or improve an 

asset with an anticipated life exceeding one year and includes land acquisition, construction 

repair or structural improvement of a facility, engineering and design for a facility, and acquisition 

or repair of equipment. Ineligible activities include operations and maintenance costs and 

feasibility studies. The NSB and several North Slope communities received total capital matching 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 153 

grants of $3.87 million for various projects from 1994 to 2004, when funding for this program was 

vetoed by the Governor. 

 Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development funds competitive grants to municipalities with at least a 51 percent “low to 

moderate income” population. Approximately $2.7 million is available annually to eligible 

municipalities for public facilities and planning activities that address issues detrimental to the 

health and safety of local residents or reduce the costs of essential community services. Maximum 

award amount is $500,000. The City of Barrow received about $10,000 under this program in 

2001 for an ADA-compliant Handicap ramp. 

 Legislative Grants: These grants are awarded by the State Legislature, with final approval by the 

Governor, and are delegated to a specific department for administration. The NSB and North 

Slope communities have received a total of $41.83 million in legislative grants since 1981 for 

various capital projects, repairs, and equipment purchases. 

 National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) Grants: The U.S. Department of the Interior refunds a 

portion of fees received as a result of oil development in the reserve to the State of Alaska. These 

funds are made available as grants to mitigate adverse impacts due to oil development. NPR-A 

grants to the NSB and North Slope communities have amounted to $95.6 million since 1987. 

Descriptions of grants awarded to the North Slope region are shown in Table 6-1 through Table 

6-5.

 Safe Communities Program (Safe): This program provides financial assistance to municipalities to 

help fund public services such as police and fire protection, emergency medical services, and 

sanitation services. The NSB and North Slope communities received Safe funds in 2002 and 2003 

amounting to a total of $1.75 million. Funding for this program was vetoed by the Governor in FY 

2004. 

 State Revenue Sharing (SRS) Program: This program provides financial assistance to municipalities, 

eligible unincorporated communities, and eligible volunteer fire departments to help fund public 

services. These services include education, water and sewer, police, road maintenance, health 

care and fire protection. The North Slope region received SRS grants in 2002 and 2003 

amounting to $733,571. Funding for this program was vetoed by the Governor in FY 2004. 

 Temporary Fiscal Relief (TFR): These funds were provided in FY 2004 to help weather the loss of 

State Revenue Sharing, Safe Communities, and Capital Matching grants. Special “one time” 

federal funds were provided under the “Fiscal Relief Program”. Small communities received a 

minimum payment of $40,000. A total of about $753,000 was awarded to the NSB and North 

Slope communities.
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

154 Final

Figure 6-9. State of Alaska Administered Funds Received by the North Slope Borough and North Slope 

Communities by Type of Grant, FY 1981-2006 

$0.26 $3.87 $0.01

$41.83

$95.63

$1.75 $0.73 $0.75

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

Millions

ACMP

Capital Matching

CDBG

Legislative

NPR-A

Safe

SRS

TFR

Source: Community Funding Database, Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic 

Development 

6.3 The Role of Tribal Governments 

Tribes may be represented by a traditional council or by an IRA council organized under the Indian 

Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, as amended in 1936. The Act allowed groups of Natives associated 

with a place to petition the Secretary of the Interior for incorporation and recognition as a tribe. The 

majority of the Alaskan tribes currently recognized by the federal government were incorporated 

under these provisions. 

The following are federally-recognized tribes on the North Slope: 

 Naqsragmuit Tribal Council (City of 

Anaktuvuk Pass) 

 Atqasuk Village 

 Native Village of Barrow 

 Kaktovik Village 

 Native Village of Nuiqsut 

 Native Village of Point Hope IRA 

 Native Village of Point Lay IRA 

 Village of Wainwright 

Tribal governments were among the first means by which Alaska Natives participated in the political 

process. After ANCSA, Alaska Natives continued to hold tribal affiliation, but also became 

shareholders in regional and village corporations. In the ensuing years, there has occasionally been 

competition and tension between the tribal governments and Alaska Native corporations. For 

example, tribes and corporations sometimes competed for certain federal grant money. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 155 

The tribal entities are viewed as representing the interests of the tribal membership and a potential 

partner with the NSB in providing community services. As noted in Chapter 6, tribal governments 

have access to funds through federal agencies such as the BIA, but the amount of money available at 

any one time through these organizations is not on the same scale as what the NSB collects in 

property taxes. In many cases, the NSB works closely with the tribal governments in a synergistic 

manner. For example, the NSB might secure funding for a project, which a tribal government later 

operates and manages. In Point Lay, the only unincorporated community on the North Slope, the 

tribal council acts as the local government. Funding for tribal operations or tribal affairs typically flows 

from the federal government, and from and through the NSB. The BIA traditionally has taken the lead 

in supporting and funding law-related programs by tribal governments. BIA also provides baseline 

funding under the Indian Self-Determination Act for tribes to allocate according to their own 

priorities. In Alaska, most villages receive the minimum funding of $160,000 per village. Villages 

frequently allocate much of this funding to general programs like tribal operations or tribal 

government services that have a wide range of allowable uses. 

In several North Slope villages, tribal governments continue to exercise judicial or mediation functions 

to resolve individual disputes. The decision to take on or expand this role often originates in concern 

for community law enforcement or child welfare. As tribal governments grow in strength, they also 

turn their attention to judicial functions as a role of government. The cases they address most 

commonly involve minor criminal offenses, children in need of aid, adoptions, custody, property, and 

probate. From village to village, there is a wide variation in dispute resolution methods, court 

structure, and caseload (Alaska Judicial Council, 1999). For example, the Native Village of Barrow is 

the IRA council for the Barrow area. The council regularly convenes itself as an adjudicatory body, 

hearing 50-70 cases per year. The caseload is primarily traditional adoptions, custody, and child in 

need of aid cases. The council does not receive separate funding for its adjudicatory work. An elders’ 

advisory board at the Barrow Senior Center provides advice on elders’ issues like burial plots, elder 

abuse, and assisted living. The elders also help train Borough police. The Point Hope IRA council 

occasionally sits as a juvenile committee to hear juvenile delinquency cases. The Point Hope 

community is discussing possible formation of a community court to hear juvenile offenses. It has a 

traditional law committee to discuss how certain matters traditionally would be handled in an Iñupiaq 

community. In 1990, the Native Village of Point Hope received a $140,000 grant to promote 

management and capacity-building for the tribal government, economic development, and planning 

and ordinance work for development of a tribal court. The reach of the grant was ambitious, and the 

village was unable to do all of the work necessary to develop a tribal court (Alaska Judicial Council, 

1999). 

In addition to these village tribal entities, there is also the Iñupiat Community of the Arctic Slope 

(ICAS)—a regional IRA tribal government overseen by a Joint Tribal Council composed of elected 

village representatives. The ICAS was organized by the leadership within the Arctic Slope Native 

Association to further solidify the North Slope communities (Smythe and Worl, 1985). Although the 

first ICAS election was held in 1971, it wasn’t until 1979 that the first region-wide election was 

conducted to include all the villages on the North Slope. The formation of a regional tribal 

government did not mean that the village tribal governments surrendered their autonomy; they 

continued to utilize their local IRA governments (Smythe and Worl, 1985). 

ICAS was fairly inactive from the time of its organization until the mid-1970s, but its council members 

initiated actions which established its links to other institutions (Smythe and Worl, 1985).44 The board 

 

44 During the early 1970s the ICAS also engaged in law suits to protect Native lands such as Edwardsen v. 

Morton, which asked for trespass damages to Native residences, fishing and hunting areas resulting from oil 

exploration on the North Slope (Arctic Circle Virtual Classroom, 2005). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

156 Final

passed several resolutions which effectively transferred its tribal authority and its ability to provide 

services for its membership to the NSB and ASRC; housing (HUD), health (PHS), and education were 

transferred to the NSB; gas operations were delegated to a utilities organization through an agreement 

between the U.S. Navy, the BIA, and ASRC. These actions maximized the financial base for each of 

the institutions and increased the services to its membership. ICAS began expanding its operations in 

1978. The enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and 

Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 provided funds for Native education, social service, and economic 

development programs administered by ICAS. From 1976 to 1982, ICAS administered approximately 

$1.5 million in direct, and $1.5 million in indirect, grants. However, these programs ended in 1982 

when the BIA withdrew its funding for the programs (Smythe and Worl, 1985). 

In recent years, ICAS has renewed its function as a conduit for federal program funds, contracting 

through the NSB to provide social and educational services to provide economic development 

programs. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Education awarded the ICAS a $311,796 Rehabilitation 

Services Grant through the American Indians with Disabilities Program. In 2002, the ICAS partnered 

with the NSB to administer a $126,000 grant from the BIA to develop a transportation improvement 

plan. 

ICAS offers its member communities various services including scholarship grants, and clothing or 

work-related tools for members in need. Revenue from state-granted bingo license allows ICAS to 

send council members to state and regional meetings at which important subsistence matters are 

discussed. ICAS also helps resolve disputes over Native allotments and also offers its members dispute 

resolution services (Alaska Judicial Council, 1993). Finally, the ICAS continues to be engaged in the 

protection of subsistence, sovereignty, and dominion with respect to various land problems involving 

the North Slope Iñupiat. 

6.4 Role of Non-Profit Organizations 

Non-profit organizations in the NSB are primarily involved in education, health/medical services, 

public housing services, and other community services. Non-profit organizations obtain funding from 

regional and village for-profit Alaska Native corporations, the NSB government, and the federal and 

state governments. 

A list of the major non-profit organizations based in the NSB and their most current income data are 

provided in Table 6-7. The income data are based on income tax returns filed with the Internal 

Revenue Service. Historical income data for non-profit organizations are not available from this 

source. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 157 

Table 6-7. Assets and Income of Major Non-profit Organizations, North Slope Borough, 2004 

Non-Profit Entity Income 

Barrow 

Arctic Slope Native Association, Ltd $22,557,457 

Barrow Utilities and Electric Cooperative $11,882,325 

Ilisagvik College $10,257,970 

Barrow Arctic Science Consortium $1,948,900 

Barrow Search and Rescue Inc $1,165,789 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission $1,113,055 

Silakkuagvik Communication Inc (Radio) $1,085,014 

Utqiagvigmiut Agviqsiuqtit Agnanich $691,661 

International Association of Lions Club $185,221 

UIC Foundation Inc $128,440 

Arctic Development Council, Inc $105,865 

Barrow Curling and Hockey Association $101,131 

Zion Unlimited $65,286 

Nuiqsut 

Kuukpikmiut Subsistence Oversight Panel Inc $70,410 

Utuqqanaaqaguk Inc. $0 

Kaktovik 

Salligutchit Inc. $0 

Anaktuvuk Pass 

Aaniyak Inc $0 

Anaktuvuk Pass Health Corporation 

Point Hope 

Tigara Educational Foundation Inc $116,759 

Tikigaqmiut Inc. $0 

Wainwright 

Wainwright Cooperative Association $1,643,253 

Allualikmiut Inc $0 

Point Lay 

Native Village of Point Lay 3BA $836,532 

Source: Melissa Data, 2005. 

A discussion of the major non-profit corporations involved in education, public housing services, and 

health care on the North is provided in the following sub-sections. 

6.4.1 Ilisagvik College 

The college had its origins in 1986, when the NSB created the North Slope Higher Education Center. 

The name was changed in 1991 to Arctic Sivunmun Ilisagvik College, and in 1995 the Borough 

passed an ordinance incorporating Ilisagvik College as a public and independent non-profit 

corporation. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

158 Final

The two-year college manages the Iñupiat Heritage Center and the Tuzzy Consortium Library under 

agreements with the NSB. The college also provides adult basic education instruction and offers the 

GED, as well as coursework in a variety of vocational and academic programs leading towards 

certificate and associate degrees. It offers associate degrees in Arts and in Applied Sciences, and oneyear certificates in a variety of trades. Programs offered include Carpentry/Carpenter, Electrician, 

Diesel Mechanics Technology/Technician, Truck and Bus Driver/Commercial Vehicle Operation, 

Art/Art Studies, General Mental and Social Health Services and Allied Professions. 

The College is the principal employer in the education field in the NSB. The College’s expenditures in 

2002 and 2003 amounted to $7.1 million (North Slope Borough, 2005). 

The NSB, Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation, Arctic Slope Native Association, ASRC and the Kuukpik 

Corporations have all provided financial and logistical support to the students and programs of 

Ilisagvik College. 

6.4.2 Tagiugmiullu Nunamiuulu Housing Authority 

Tagiugmiullu Nunamiuulu Housing Authority (TNHA) is the housing authority in the North Slope 

region. The NSB Housing Department has acted as the agent for TNHA through management of its 

low-income, HUD-subsidized housing programs (NSB School District, 2005b). In 2004, the NSB 

announced that all the Housing Department’s rental units would be transferred to the TNHA as part 

of its budget reform program to transfer certain community services to private enterprise and nonprofit service organizations (North Slope Borough, 2004). Table 6-8 provides details on the amount of 

funding and the kinds of projects undertaken by TNHA. Based on information in the table, TNHA has 

administered housing projects worth over $51.5 million since 1998. The lead agency typically covers 

total costs of the projects; except in the low-rent units construction project, in which case funds were 

leveraged from other sources including AHFC and the North Slope Borough. 

Table 6-8. Funded Projects for Tagiugmiullu Nunamiuulu Housing Authority, North Slope Communities 

Lead 

Agency Year Project Description 

Project 

Stage 

Agency 

Cost ($) 

Total 

Cost ($) 

Anaktuvuk Pass

HUD 2004 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Preliminary 158,229 158,229 

HUD 2003 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Construction 201,251 201,251 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 173,928 173,928 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 168,206 168,206 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 168,206 168,206 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 179,863 179,863 

Subtotal 1,049,683 1,049,683 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 159 

Lead 

Agency Year Project Description 

Project 

Stage 

Agency 

Cost ($) 

Total 

Cost ($) 

Atqasuk 

HUD 2004 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Preliminary 137,424 137,424 

HUD 2003 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Construction 140,288 140,288 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 117,056 117,056 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 117,056 117,056 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 125,127 125,127 

Subtotal 636,951 636,951 

Barrow 

HUD/AHFC 2001 Construct Low Rent units in 7 North 

Slope Villages 

Completed 183,863 6,841,782 

HUD 2001 Indian Housing Block Grant for 

communities in the Region (not yet 

allocated) 

Completed 4,506,411 4,506,411 

HUD/AHFC 2000 Construct Low Rent units in 7 North 

Slope Villages 

Completed 183,863 6,841,782 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant - Arctic 

Slope Regional Corporation 

Completed 3,293,624 3,293,624 

HUD/AHFC 1999 Construct Low Rent units in 7 North 

Slope Villages 

Completed 205,292 6,841,782 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant - Arctic 

Slope Regional Corporation 

Completed 3,293,624 3,293,624 

HUD/AHFC 1998 Construct Low Rent Units in 7 North 

Slope Villages 

Completed 678,429 6,841,782 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant - Arctic 

Slope Regional Corporation 

Completed 2,997,418 2,997,418 

Subtotal 15,342,524 41,458,205 

Kaktovik 

HUD 2004 Indian Housing Block Grant Preliminary 164,637 164,637 

HUD 2003 Indian Housing Block Grant Construction 211,432 211,432 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant Completed 173,600 173,600 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant Completed 173,600 173,600 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant Completed 186,168 186,168 

Subtotal 909,437 909,437 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

160 Final

Nuiqsut 

HUD 2004 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Preliminary 301,911 301,911 

HUD 2003 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Construction 268,999 268,999 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 217,284 217,284 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 217,284 217,284 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 233,455 233,455 

Subtotal 1,238,933 1,238,933 

Point Lay 

HUD 2004 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Preliminary 198,825 198,825 

HUD 2003 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Construction 135,977 135,977 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 108,439 108,439 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 108,439 108,439 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant NAHASDA 

administration, operating & 

construction funds 

Completed 115,842 115,842 

Subtotal 667,522 667,522 

Wainwright 

HUD 2004 Indian Housing Block Grant Preliminary 339,922 339,922 

HUD 2003 Indian Housing Block Grant Construction 438,031 438,031 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant Completed 355,599 355,599 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant Completed 355,599 355,599 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant Completed 379,830 379,830 

Subtotal; 1,868,981 1,868,981 

North Slope Borough 

HUD 2004 Indian Housing Block Grant - Arctic 

Slope Region 

Preliminary 3,694,943 3,694,943 

Total 25,408,974 51,524,655 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 161 

6.4.3 Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA) and Other Non-Profit Organizations Involved in 

Health Care 

As noted in Chapter 2, the Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA) was established as a non-profit 

corporation in 1966 to advocate for Native control of land and resources on the North Slope. It was 

active in this mission until 1972, at which time the Iñupiat Community of the Arctic Slope was 

formed.45 ASNA was dormant as an organization until 1991. In that year the ASNA board of directors 

reorganized and revitalized ASNA with a new focus: to bring local control of federally funded 

programs and services to the North Slope Iñupiat. Since 1996, ASNA has been working principally as 

the administrator of the Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital, an Indian Health Service health care 

facility in Barrow. The ASNA assumed management of the hospital under a P.L. 93-638 selfdetermination contract.46 ASNA also currently manages the health clinics in Barrow, Atqasuk, 

Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Lay, and Wainwright. 

Anaktuvuk Pass receives medical care through a contract with the Tanana Chiefs Conference, while 

Point Hope receives medical care through a contract with the Maniilaq Association. The Tanana 

Chiefs Conference is an Alaska Native non-profit corporation charged with advancing tribal selfdetermination and enhancing regional Native unity. The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska triballyoperated, non-profit, health and social services organization in Northwest Alaska. 

6.5 Economic Linkages Among Entities 

As described in Chapters 4 and 5, local government and Native Alaska corporations have played key 

roles in the North Slope economy. This section provides an overview of the economic linkages among 

the entities within each of these two groups, and then examines the linkages between the two groups. 

Local government on the North Slope consists of the NSB and the cities. As discussed in Chapter 4, 

most of the cities on the North Slope transferred nearly all municipal powers to the NSB, including 

operation of basic services and facilities. Moreover, the NSB has provided directly or indirectly the 

majority of full time employment in the villages. The NSB, given its functions and powers, has been a 

conduit for channeling federal and state dollars as well as property tax revenues to the cities in the 

form of public facilities, programs, and services. 

The NSB and cities have also been linked through residents who serve on different NSB agencies, 

commissions, and committees or are directly employed by the Borough programs within the villages. 

In addition, NSB-related business consumes a significant portion of the agenda items of city council 

meetings in terms of land, housing, services, and employment (Smythe and Worl, 1985). 

Linkages between the two types of Alaska Native corporations—regional and village—have also 

developed over the years. Joint ventures between Alaska Native village corporations and ASRC 

companies have helped reduce the village corporation’s exposure to risk, uncertainty, and 

opportunism from companies outside of Alaska. It is also likely that alliances made between the village 

corporations and ASRC companies help the newer or smaller village corporations obtain access to 

resources and legitimacy. 

 

45 The initial ASNA is considered to be the predecessor of the ASRC. In most regions of Alaska the Native 

Associations involved in the settlement of land issues during the 1960s evolved into the regional corporations 

established under ANCSA. 

46 Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638, as amended) Alaska 

Native corporations could assume from the Indian Health Service the administration and operation of health 

services. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

162 Final

The local governments and Alaska Native corporations have been closely linked almost since their 

formation. In particular, the NSB and ARSC have a long history of cooperation and mutual support. In 

the 1970s, there were some areas of initial conflict between the NSB and ARSC due in part to 

personality conflicts and different strategies toward development (see, for example, the discussion in 

Arctic Circle Virtual Classroom (2005)) about early government-corporate disagreements with respect 

to oil and gas development). According to Worl et al. (1981), these conflicts were the result of 

inherent differences between the two entities: 

The NSB has, in one sense, a broader and somewhat different constituency than the ASRC, 

although at first glance the constituencies appear to be identical. The NSB represents and 

serves all residents of the region, deals directly with all major and most minor private industry 

and businesses, and is responsible to and a legal partner of federal and state governments. 

ASRC, on the other hand, represents an essentially closed class of shareholders, is directly 

influenced by a smaller number of local residents, and is responsible to and a business partner 

of many non-local as well as local businesses. Informants suggest that the disjunctures in the 

values of the shareholders (profit versus traditional life-style) are not equally represented 

within the corporation, nor is it required that they should be, given its mission. 

In addition, there were initial complaints by ASRC that it had too small a share of major contracts let 

by the NSB (Worl et al., 1981). The NSB received early and considerable pressure from its 

constituency to provide services and facilities quickly; ASRC, as a new corporation, could not 

guarantee that it could deliver projects in time for the NSB to fulfill its promises. Over time, however, 

NSB contracts were given more frequently to ASRC as the corporation’s capacity to perform these 

contracts in a satisfactory manner expanded. Moreover, as indicated in Chapter 5, ASRC has become 

a dominant economic force on the North Slope in its own right. As a result of its investments in oil 

development on the North Slope, ASRC and its subsidiaries constitute the largest local property tax 

payers in the region (National Research Council, 2003). 

Alaska Native village corporations were also able to contract NSB capital improvement projects as 

they increased their capacity to perform these contracts. As the village corporations participated in 

more joint ventures with ASRC their collective capacity to compete for NSB contracts was 

considerably improved (Worl et al., 1981). 

Over the years, the tribal governments have generated additional economic activity on the North 

Slope through their government-to-government relationship with the federal government. As part of 

this relationship, the tribal governments have used funds previously supplied to federal agencies and 

provided services traditionally supplied by those agencies. The tribal entities have been viewed as 

representing the interests of the tribal membership and a potential partner with the NSB in providing 

community services. 

The economic linkage that have evolved among these various entities over the years have formed a 

complex web or network that provides jobs and public services to residents of the North Slope. The 

network has acted as a means through which there can be a transfer and flow of resources—whether 

material (money, equipment) or non-material (information, support, training). It also has linked up not 

only the organizations, agencies, and actors themselves, but their actions: policies, programs, and 

projects. The formation and operation of this network has been facilitated by “board interlocks”—ties 

among organizations through a member of one organization sitting on the board of another. For 

example, members of the North Slope Borough Assembly have also often served on the ASRC Board 

of Directors. The social embeddedness created by interlock ties has helped ensure that economic 

development on the North Slope has been shaped by shared value systems and needs in the local 

communities. 
Final 163 

7 Individual and Household Economic Impacts and Responses 

The preceding chapters of this study presented a detailed description of the role that various entities 

have played in shaping the North Slope economy over the past three decades. In this chapter, these 

higher-level forces of economic change are linked to economic impacts and responses at the 

individual and household level. 

This chapter draws on readily available census and economic data to describe changes in Iñupiat 

households and their economies, including changes in public services (Section 7.1.1), educational 

attainment (Section 7.1.1.3), employment and income (Section 7.1.2), cost of living (Section 7.1.3, 

demographic characteristics (Section 7.1.4), the harvest of subsistence resources (Section 7.1.5), and 

the overall quality of life (Section 7.1.6) between 1965 and the present. In addition, changes in 

selected characteristics of non-Iñupiat households on the North Slope are examined. As noted in 

Section 1.2, historical U.S. Census Bureau data correspond to two slightly different geographic areas. 

The demographic data provided by the 1960 and 1970 Censuses are for the Barrow Census Division 

(which only included the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Barrow, and Wainwright), while the data 

provided by the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses are for the North Slope Borough and cover all eight 

North Slope communities. 

7.1.1 Community and Household Services 

As described in Chapter 2, despite some improvements in economic conditions during the postWorld War II years, the overall quality of life in North Slope villages through the 1960s continued to 

be poor in comparison with that in most communities in the United States. During these years none 

of the villages, with the exception of Barrow,47 had a central plant capable of generating electricity for 

the entire community (Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999). Other public utilities and law 

enforcement services were minimal, schools were inadequate, and there were no public libraries, 

community centers, or recreational facilities. 

With the inception of the ASRC and NSB in the 1970s, employment opportunities for the North Slope 

Iñupiat greatly improved, as did the provision of many public services in the villages. As discussed in 

Chapter 4, the NSB assumed area-wide responsibility for a wide range of municipal services. This 

section examines the improvements that occurred in water and sanitation facilities, health and social 

services, education, housing, public safety, transportation and communications. 

7.1.1.1 Water and Sanitation Services 

During the past twenty-five years, there has been a substantial increase in basic public services within 

North Slope communities that have significantly improved the quality of village life. Previously, for 

example, to obtain drinking water in winter, ice blocks was cut from freshwater lakes, hauled by dog 

team and stacked next to the house until they were needed. A 1973 survey of public services in the 

NSB noted that Barrow was by far the most populous community in Alaska without a safe source of 

potable water or piped water and sewer system (Dupere and Associates, Inc., 1973).48 According to 

the U. S. Census, as late as 1980, more than 80 percent of the year-round housing units in the 

 

47 In 1946, generators were introduced to Barrow to supply electricity (Worl and Smythe, 1986). 

48 The exception in Barrow was the federally owned housing in which U.S. government employees resided. This 

housing compound had potable water and was connected to a piped water and sewer system (Dupere and 

Associates, Inc., 1973). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

164 Final

Borough did not have access to a public sewage disposal system. Since 1982, Ukpeagvik Iñupiat 

Corporation Construction Inc. has performed $180 million worth of utility work to provide six NSB 

communities with long-awaited modern water and sewer service (DCCED, 2004a). A state-of-the-art 

3.5 mile insulated underground tunnel known as the “utilidor” contains water, sewer, electric and 

telephone lines, and provides service to roughly 1,000 households in Barrow (73 percent of 

households), nearby subdivisions and nearly all of the public buildings (DCCED, 2004a). Today, the 

majority of households in North Slope communities have access to public water and sanitation 

facilities. Table 7-1 provides an overview of current water and sanitation sources in the region. While 

the availability of utilities has greatly increased over the years due to completion of capital 

improvement projects, there are still many homes without complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 

(Circumpolar Research Associates, 2004). 

Table 7-1. Water and Sanitation Sources, North Slope Communities, 2000 

Drinking Water Sanitation 

Total 

Number 

of 

Housing 

Units 

Number of 

Housing 

Units on 

Public 

Water 

Percent 

Housing 

Units on 

Public 

Water 

Percent 

Housing 

Units on 

Other 

Systems1

Number of 

Housing 

Units on 

Public 

Sewers 

Percent 

Housing 

Units on 

Public 

Sewers2 

Percent of 

Housing 

Units on 

Other 

Systems 

Anaktuvuk Pass 101 99 98 2 99 98 2 

Atqasuk 60 50 83 17 50 83 17 

Barrow 1,620 1,568 97 3 1,568 97 3 

Kaktovik 95 81 85 15 81 85 15 

Nuiqsut 126 125 99 1 125 99 1 

Point Hope 215 188 87 13 188 87 13 

Point Lay 67 64 96 4 64 96 4 

Wainwright 179 134 75 25 134 75 25 

1 May include cisterns and streams. 

2 May include haul systems. 

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2004 

The Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation Construction continues to serve as the prime mechanical 

contractor on water and sewer treatment plant projects under construction across the NSB. The 

company also installs heating and plumbing and manages subcontractors installing fire protection and 

environmental controls. 

7.1.1.2 Health and Social Services 

The first hospital on the North Slope was constructed in Barrow in 1920 by Presbyterian missionaries 

(NSB Commission on Iñupiat History, Language and Culture, 2004), but health conditions in other 

North Slope communities remained extremely poor. During World War II it was reported that half of 

the young Iñupiat men who volunteered for military duty had to be discharged as physically unfit 

(Chance, 1990). Ten percent of all Iñupiat children died before their first birthday, and tuberculosis 

was a major cause of death among adults. Health conditions improved in the 1950s as a result of 

federal programs (Kruse, 1984). However, in many North Slope villages routine modern medical care 

continued to be unavailable (Hess, 1993). By this period, the U.S. Public Health Service (through its 

Indian Health Service) operated the hospital in Barrow, but it only provided itinerant medical and 

dental care to the smaller villages of the region. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 165 

In 1976, the Borough became a central player in providing improved health services on the North 

Slope. The Iñupiat Community of the Arctic Slope passed a resolution transferring to the newlycreated NSB Department of Health authority to contract for health services.49 The establishment of 

the department led to a dramatic improvement in the overall health and social services available to 

North Slope residents. As the administrative center of the NSB, many regional health and social 

services are located in Barrow, including the Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital, which receives 

significant funding from the NSB. The hospital, which was constructed in 1963 by the Indian Health 

Service, is a 14-bed qualified acute care facility and state-certified medevac service (DCCED, 2004). 

In 1996, the Arctic Slope Native Association assumed management of the hospital under a P.L. 93-

638 contract. The Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation provides hospital support services, which include 

administration, housekeeping and facilities maintenance, under a P.L. 93-638 contract. 

The NSB Search and Rescue, organized in 1979, provides rescue capabilities and medevac services 

for all North Slope villages (Hess, 1993; NSB Search and Rescue, 2004). Medevac aircraft can 

transport patients to Barrow, Fairbanks or Anchorage. 

In the outlying villages, health clinics constructed by the NSB and staffed by community health aides 

are open 24 hours a day for emergencies (NSB School District, 2005b). Physicians at the Samuel 

Simmonds Memorial Hospital in Barrow are able to exchange graphic and video images with village 

health clinics and assist in long-distance diagnosis of injuries or illness. This technology provides 

distant physicians and laboratories the information to determine appropriate treatment and whether 

or not patients require transport to out-of-town facilities for treatment. It can reduce unnecessary 

patient travel and disruptions to patient’s family and lifestyle. 

The NSB also maintains a range of social services to meet the mental, emotional and social well being 

of residents (NSB School District, 2005). Some of these services include housing, meals and 

transportation for senior citizens; mental health counseling; and day care services. 

In 2003, the NSB Department of Health and Social Services began a two year plan to transfer many of 

its services to the Arctic Slope Native Association and other non-profit corporations, and some 

functions may eventually be transferred to the private sector (North Slope Borough, 2005b). These 

actions are part of the NSB’s budget reform program to curb its operating costs. The Arctic Slope 

Native Association currently manages the health clinics in Barrow, Atqasuk, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point 

Lay, and Wainwright. The health clinic in Anaktuvuk Pass is managed through a contract with the 

Tanana Chiefs Conference, while Point Hope is managed through a contract with the Maniilaq 

Association. 

7.1.1.3 Education 

In 1960, 32 percent of North Slope residents 25 years old and over had completed only the first years 

of elementary school and 17 percent lacked any formal education (Table 7-2). When the Borough 

assumed responsibility for education in the mid-1970s, there was still no high school program offered 

in any school in the region except for ninth grade classes in Barrow (Underwood et al., 1978). 

Students wishing to continue their education into high school were therefore required to leave the 

region to attend BIA schools at Mt. Edgecumbe (Sitka), Chemawa (Oregon), or elsewhere or they 

could attend high schools in communities such as Anchorage and Fairbanks and board with families in 

 

49 The NSB Department of Health was established in 1976 (Worl and Smythe, 1986). In the early 1980s, social 

service programs were consolidated under the health department, resulting in a new and expanded NSB 

Department of Health and Social Services (Smythe and Worl, 1985). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

166 Final

those towns. The dropout rate is believed to have been very high. Those who did complete the 

program often found it difficult to return to their village way of life. 

When the North Slope Borough School District became responsible for the Borough’s schools in 

1974-75, it acquired control over policy decisions, buildings, curriculum, and finances. The NSB 

initiated a borough-wide high school program in 1975, and the provision of adequate educational 

facilities was a very high-priority item in the NSB Capital Improvements Program (Underwood et al., 

1978).50 When the Barrow high school was opened in 1983, it was ranked as one of finest facilities in 

the state (Worl and Smythe, 1986), but even the most isolated villages had the resources to build 

modern high schools (thereby eliminating the necessity of for high school students to migrate to 

distant boarding schools). 

These improvements in the education system not only raised education levels over time, but also gave 

each community’s youth a better chance of going to college in Fairbanks, Anchorage, or some other 

large population center. In 1986, the NSB created the North Slope Higher Education Center, a 

cooperative effort between the Borough and the University of Alaska Fairbanks.51 The North Slope 

Higher Education Board and the North Slope Borough Assembly changed the institution’s name to 

Arctic Sivunmun Ilisagvik College in 1991 to reflect its development into a community college. Arctic 

Sivunmun Ilisagvik College merged with the Mayor’s Workforce Development Program in 1994, 

adding facilities and resources to support the growing number of vocational education opportunities 

available at the College. In 1995, the NSB established, by ordinance, the Ilisagvik College 

Corporation, an independent, public, non-profit corporation of the NSB with full power for 

governance of the College vested in the Board of Trustees. While the number of Barrow residents 

enrolled in the College declined from 877 in 1993 to 768 in 1998, the number of individuals from 

other villages enrolled increased by 146 for the same period (Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999). 

Additional information on Ilisagvik College is provided in Chapter 6. 

ASRC has also contributed to raising the educational level of the North Slope Iñupiat. The 

Corporation constructed a dormitory for Alaska Natives at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and 

spends $600,000-$800,000 a year on scholarships (Thompson, 1998). 

The improvement in educational facilities in North Slope communities is reflected in changes in the 

educational level of the region’s residents. Median years of education among North Slope residents 

ages 25 and over doubled between 1960 and 1977, moving from less than 4 years to nearly 9 years 

(Kruse et al., 1981). Younger North Slope residents had much higher levels of education than older 

residents; residents ages 18-34 in 1977 had a median of more than 12 years of education.52 By 2000, 

21 percent of North Slope residents 25 years old and over had earned a degree from a 2- or 4-year 

college or had completed a graduate degree (Table 7-2). An additional 21 percent had at least some 

college education. These percentages are comparable to national averages and values for the State of 

Alaska as a whole. 

 

50 After the 1972 Hootch v. Alaska State Operated School System lawsuit and the 1976 Tobeluk v. Lind consent 

decree, the NSB was compelled to build schools in each of its villages so Native children could attend school in 

their home communities. 

51 In 1974, the NSB organized its own post-secondary institution ─ the Iñupiat University of the Arctic. Although 

the University was granted candidacy status for accreditation purposes, the compromises to the Iñupiat 

character and orientation that this necessitated produced considerable dissension in the ranks of the 

University’s supporters (Barnhardt and Harrison, 1993). These concerns, along with growing political and 

financial conflicts led to the closure of the school by the borough Assembly in 1980. 

52 The large increase in the non-Iñupiat resident population that occurred between 1970 and 1980 contributed to 

the increase in educational levels on the North Slope. Many of these new residents were highly-educated 

professionals, such as teachers and administrators. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 167 

Table 7-2. Educational Attainment of North Slope Residents, 

1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 

United States Alaska North Slope 

 Percent of Persons 25 Years Old and Over 

1960 

No school years completed 2.4 3.5 12.7 

Elementary 1-4 years 6.9 4.6 23.4 

5-8 years 32.4 20.2 23.1 

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 18.7 18.9 9.9 

High School graduate (inc. equiv.) 21.2 32.3 13.1 

College 1-3 years 8.6 12.9 13.7 

4 years or more 9.6 0.5 4.1 

1970 

No school years completed - - 15.1 

Elementary 1-4 years 5.3 17.3 

5-8 years 22.5 12.5 40.1 

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 17.1 14.9 8.4 

High School graduate (inc. equiv.) 34 37.7 9 

College 1-3 years 10.2 14.9 3.6 

4 years or more 11.1 14.1 6.5 

1980 

Less than 9th grade 17.5 9 33.8 

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 13.7 8.5 9.7 

High School graduate (inc. equiv.) 36.8 38.9 27.4 

College 1-3 years 14.9 22.6 16.4 

4 years or more 17 21.1 12.6 

1990 

Less than 9th grade 10.4 5.1 19 

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 14.4 8.2 12.5 

High School graduate (inc. equiv.) 30 28.7 30.5 

Some college, no degree 18.7 27.6 19.2 

Associate degree 6.2 7.2 4.7 

Bachelor’s degree 13.1 15 9.3 

Graduate or professional degree 7.2 8 4.8 

2000 

Less than 9th grade 7.5 4.1 11.8 

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 12.1 7.5 10.8 

High School graduate (inc. equiv.) 28.6 27.9 35.1 

Some college, no degree 21 28.6 21.5 

Associate degree 6.3 7.2 3.9 

Bachelor’s degree 15.5 16.1 11.1 

Graduate or professional degree 8.9 8.6 5.9 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

168 Final

Table 7-3. Educational Attainment in North Slope Communities, 1990 and 2000 

Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Pt. Hope Pt. Lay Wainwright 

 Percent of Persons 25 Years Old and Over 

1990 

Less than 9th grade 23 29 15.8 28.6 32.5 22.1 26.3 30.7 

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 14.3 19 10.5 6.8 26.9 16.5 11.3 15.9 

High School graduate (inc. 

equiv.) 

38.9 34 28.3 34.6 18.8 37.5 45 39.4 

Some college, no degree 15.9 12 19.9 21.8 15 15.8 12.5 4.8 

Associate degree 0 0 7.2 0 1.3 1.1 5 0 

Bachelor’s degree 4.8 0 12.4 3.8 1.3 5.1 0 6 

Graduate or professional degree 3.2 6 5.9 4.5 4.4 1.8 0 3.2 

2000 

Less than 9th grade 14.3 10.1 9.8 24.7 20.6 14.8 9.6 12.1 

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 16.2 35.4 8.2 11.1 16.2 8.7 16.5 18.8 

High School graduate (inc. 

equiv.) 49.4 36.4 31.1 33.3 42.2 42 37.4 48.6 

Some college, no degree 6.5 8.1 25.2 14.8 13.7 18.3 30.4 9.6 

Associate degree 1.9 6.1 5.3 0 0 2.6 0 0 

Bachelor’s degree 6.5 2 13.6 4.9 4.9 9.6 6.1 6.7 

Graduate or professional degree 5.2 2 6.7 11.1 2.5 4.1 0 4.3 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

Some analysts believe that Alaska Native teachers may be more effective than other teachers in 

helping Alaska Native students learn, in part because Native teachers would be more likely to stay in 

small villages long-term, provide better continuity for students, and share cultural values (Goldsmith et 

al., 2004). The number of Alaska Native teachers in North Slope schools has not changed appreciably 

over the years. In both 1984 and 2001, about 12 percent of the teacher positions in the NSB School 

District were held by Alaska Natives (Goldsmith et al., 2004; Smythe and Worl, 1985). In comparison, 

about five percent of the teachers in all Alaska school districts are Alaska Natives (Goldsmith et al., 

2004). However, 20 of the 55 school districts in the state have a higher percentage of Alaska Native 

teachers than the NSB School District. 

7.1.1.4 Housing 

Between 1947 and 1953, the Alaska Native Services initiated a housing program with support from 

the navy to provide 100 new frame houses in Barrow (Worl and Smythe, 1986). However, many 

North Slope families continued to live in substandard housing through the 1960s and early 1970s. 

Some additional efforts at upgrading housing began about 1967 with a BIA program at Anaktuvuk 

Pass to replace sod homes and at Barrow to realign streets and rehabilitate some houses (Underwood 

et al., 1978). The Farmers Home Administration has financed much of Barrow’s new housing and 

made a number of renovation loans. The Alaska State Housing Authority assisted in projects at Point 

Hope in 1970 and at Wainwright in 1972. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 169 

At the time the NSB was incorporated, housing on the North Slope was still more crowded and less 

thickly insulated than urban houses elsewhere in Alaska (Underwood et al., 1978). The typical 

household on the North Slope in 1973 consisted of five or six people (the average was 5.37) 

occupying drafty quarters averaging 630 square feet (Dupere and Associates, Inc., 1973). Eben 

Hopson, the first mayor of the NSB, made improved housing priority, and housing construction 

accelerated markedly under programs of the NSB (Eben Hopson Memorial Archives, 2004). Over the 

years the NSB Housing Department has endeavored to provide modern and affordable rental units to 

all residents of the North Slope (NSB School District, 2005). The high cost of construction in the Arctic 

and scarcity of available privately held or inexpensively developable land made this program a vital 

one for Borough residents. 

During the 1970s, housing emerged as an issue not only for the potential effect it had on Iñupiat 

families, but also as a means to control community development (Smythe and Worl, 1985). In 

particular, housing for non-Iñupiat in-migrant workers became a significant criterion for community 

growth and diversification. The availability of new housing offered significant incentives to non-Iñupiat 

and their families to seek work and remain within the community (Worl et al., 1981). For example, 

while most of the low-income housing in Barrow was occupied by Iñupiat families, the majority of 

tenants in the NSB’s multiple-family units were Caucasian NSB government employees who migrated 

to Barrow (Worl and Smythe, 1986). 

In spite of the NSB housing program, a BIA Housing Improvement of Barrow conducted in 1985 

found that 184 houses occupied by Natives were in substandard condition (these were private homes 

not built by the NSB) (Worl and Smythe, 1986). During the Resident Employment and Living 

Improvements Program, jobs were created adding improvements to residential housing in North Slope 

villages (Hess, 1993). In addition, a borough program assisted families to secure bank loans to build 

new homes. As discussed in Chapter 6, the NSB Housing Department has acted as the agent for the 

Tagiugmiullu Nunamiuulu Housing Authority through management of its low-income, HUDsubsidized housing programs. 

The improvement in housing in North Slope communities is reflected in the U.S. Census housing 

statistics for the region (Table 7-4). In 1960, for example, Barrow had a total of 237 dwelling units. By 

1985, the number had increased to 1,000, of which about 15 percent were low-income housing 

(Worl and Smythe, 1986).53 The number of housing units in Barrow had increased to 1,620 by 2000. 

For the North Slope region as a whole, the number of housing units increased from 319 to 2,538 

between 1960 and 2000. The increase in housing was largely due to the NSB Capital Improvements 

Program. However, in the private sector, individuals and businesses also took advantage of the 

housing shortage to construct rental units (Worl and Smythe, 1986). Some of this private sector 

housing was constructed to attract employees who tended to be non-Iñupiat (Smythe and Worl, 

1985). The preponderance of both public and private rental housing is reflected in the low rate of 

private home ownership compared to the state or nation as a whole. 

With the availability of new housing in the villages (and increased employment opportunities) larger 

family units separated into smaller household units.54 The size of households in Barrow declined 

sharply from 6.1 in 1960 to 3.60 in 1980. In comparison to other North Slope villages, the average 

 

53 According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the cost of building low-income public 

housing units in the Arctic coastal region was about 2.3 times higher than in Anchorage (Underwood et al., 

1978). 

54 Schwede (2003) notes that the Iñupiaq definition of “household” may not match that of the U.S. Census 

Bureau. For example, Iñupiaq respondents may not identify households in terms of shared physical structure, 

but rather on the basis of sharing of domestic functions such as earning and pooling income, cooperating in 

subsistence activities, cooking, child care, child rearing, and other domestic tasks. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

170 Final

size of households in Barrow was almost consistently lower over the time period for which data are 

available, probably as a result of the higher number of non-Iñupiat families in Barrow (Smythe and 

Worl, 1985). The division of extended family units into nuclear forms residing in separate domiciles 

raised concerns about the social impact of reduced intra-family contact. However, Smythe and Worl 

(1985) found no indication that traditional patterns of extended family relationships (visiting, sharing. 

cooperating) had changed significantly. As the researchers observed: 

While [the fragmentation of the extended family into smaller households] has been an 

ongoing process since the turn of the century, the recent construction of North Slope Borough 

housing accelerated the rate. However, both economic needs and political interests have 

facilitated a relatively high degree of social interaction and cohesiveness among extended kin 

members living in different households. Also, households continue to organize themselves to 

participate together in common subsistence activities which can be maximized through the 

cooperative efforts of extended family members. The cultural values of the Iñupiat place a 

strong emphasis on sharing among kin. This orientation persists even when kin members are 

living in different households, and thus encourages continued social interaction (Smythe and 

Worl, 1985:439).55

Although the average household size in North Slope communities has declined over the years as a 

result of economic development, new housing construction and changing Borough housing policies,56

it has consistently remained higher that of Alaska or United States as a whole (Table 7-4). 

 

55 However, Smythe and Worl (1985) suggested that the high cost of new housing, including rent, utilities and 

taxes, may limit the ability, or the choice, of some extended family members to participate in subsistence 

activities or to financially support subsistence enterprises. 

56 The reduction in household size is consistent with the generalization that Alaska Native persons, couples, and 

families seek privacy and prefer living in separate houses when they can afford to maintain them (Jorgensen 

1995). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 171 

Table 7-4. Housing Characteristics of North Slope Residents, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 20001

 United States Alaska North Slope 

1960 

Total housing units - - 319

Average household size - - -

Homeownership rate 56% 41% 69%

Median value of owner-occupied housing units $53,533 $40,937 $22,493

Median rent paid $261 $495 

1970 

Total housing units - - 505

Average household size 3.14 - -

Homeownership rate 58% 44% 68%

Median value of owner-occupied housing units $64,195 $87,229 $40,405 

Median rent paid $336 $649 $434 

1980 

Total housing units - - 1158

Average household size 2.76 - 4.22

Homeownership rate 59% 47% 39%

Median value of owner-occupied housing units $85,678 $136,503 $83,318 

Median rent paid $359 $668 $661 

1990 

Total housing units - - 2,153

Average household size 2.63 - 3.45

Homeownership rate 64% 58% 40%

Median value of owner-occupied housing units $103,510 $123,532 $105,604 

Median rent paid $489 $658 $785 

2000 

Total housing units -- -- 2,538

Average household size 2.59 2.74 3.54

Homeownership rate 66% 62% 49%

Median value of owner-occupied housing units $123,008 $148,309 $116,529 

Median rent paid $619 $741 $928 

1

 Adjusted to 2001 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index 

for the Anchorage metropolitan statistical area. 

- Data were inapplicable or unavailable for this report 

Source: U.S Census Bureau. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

172 Final

Table 7-5. Housing Characteristics of North Slope Communities, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 20001

Anaktuvuk

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Pt. Hope Pt. Lay Wainwright

1960 

Total housing units - - 237 - - - - -

Average household size - - 6.1 - - - - -

Homeownership rate - - 72% - - - - -

Median value of owner-occupied housing units - - - - - - - -

Median rent paid - - - - - - - -

1970 

Total housing units 26 - 395 - - 69 - 55

Average household size - - - - - - - -

Homeownership rate - - - - - - - -

Median value of owner-occupied housing units - - - - - - - -

Median rent paid - - - - - - - -

1980

Total housing units 63 691 60 54 137 19 107

Average household size 3.71 4.52 3.60 4.50 4.00 4.45 5.33 4.19

Homeownership rate - - - - - - - -

Median value of owner-occupied housing units - - - - - - - -

Median rent paid - - $679 - - - - -

1990

Total housing units 81 64 1,184 82 102 174 48 160

Average household size 3.36 4.15 3.27 3.29 3.93 4.07 3.93 3.69

Homeownership rate 57% 56% 31% 47% 63% 40% 47% 71%

Median value of owner-occupied housing units $130,860 $109,922 $93,303 $112,278 $108,876 $105,473 $114,503 $109,792 

Median rent paid $546 $378 $822 $378 $393 $255 $687 $533 

2000

Total housing units 101 60 1,620 95 126 215 67 179

Average household size 3.73 4.18 3.25 3.36 3.60 4.40 3.02 3.54

Homeownership rate 80% 80% 41% 51% 64% 67% 56% 57%

Median value of owner-occupied housing units $115,706 $112,517 $149,852 $125,374 $92,565 $94,622 $118,894 $84,028 

Median rent paid $797 $977 $1,009 $779 $778 $716 $797 $709 

1

 Adjusted to 2001 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index 

for the Anchorage metropolitan statistical area. 

- Data were inapplicable or unavailable for this report 

Source: U.S Census Bureau. 

7.1.1.5 Public Safety 

Between 1966 and 1972, North Slope villages lost 30 lives to fire, meaning that 1 out of every 100 

persons died in fires (Hess, 1993). The effort to improve fire protection in the villages began soon after 

the formation of the NSB. Fire stations were established in each of the villages, and the stations were 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 173 

staffed with trained volunteer on-call firefighters. The NSB Fire Department also provides a wide 

variety of emergency medical training in the region (NSB Fire Department, 2004). As noted above, 

the NSB Search and Rescue provides rescue capabilities for all North Slope villages. 

Prior to the organization of the NSB, police protection on the North Slope existed largely in the form 

of one Alaska State Trooper stationed in Barrow (Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999).57 Today, 

police services within the Borough are provided by the NSB Police Department, the second largest 

municipal law enforcement agency in Alaska (after Anchorage). Each village has full-time law 

enforcement officers with training equivalent to the State Troopers, and Barrow has a twenty-seven 

member police force. The Department’s Headquarters are in Barrow where it operates a nine-cell 

corrections facility and a 24 hour dispatch center (North Slope Borough Police Department, 2004). 

Barrow also has a superior court judge and full-time magistrate paid by the state. 

7.1.1.6 Transportation 

In North Slope communities, dog teams were the primary mode of transportation into the 1960s. In 

1963, for example, the Barrow city council considered establishing a “dog park” for the 800 to 1,000 

sled dogs in Barrow (Worl and Smythe (1986). Snow machines were introduced in 1967 and were the 

primary vehicle within the city limits of Barrow and other villages by the mid-1970s (Worl and 

Smythe, 1986). By 1979, only two organized dog teams were found in Barrow (Klausner and Foulks, 

1982). Later, small all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) became a favorite means of transport for traveling within 

villages and to areas used for subsistence activities. 

A similar rapid transformation occurred in automobile transportation in North Slope communities. For 

instance, very few passenger cars were present in Barrow in the early 1970s. Between 1979 and 

1984, the number of registered vehicles in Barrow increased from 188 to 498 (Worl and Smythe 

1986). In addition, public transportation systems were established in Barrow and some other North 

Slope villages. The bus transit system in Barrow, together with the increased number of private 

vehicles, allowed continued interaction among family members and friends who have been dispersed 

throughout the enlarging town (Worl and Smythe 1986). Smythe and Worl (1985 report that public 

transport in Wainwright also offset the potential effects of the dispersal of new households on intravillage interaction. 

Where possible, inter-village overland travel on the North Slope is by snow machine in the winter and 

ATV in the summer.58 However, most of the travel between North Slope communities is by air 

transport. In addition, most of the travel between North Slope communities and areas off the North 

Slope is by air.59 Regularly scheduled passenger and air-cargo jet services provide Barrow’s only year-

 

57 According to Worl et al. (1981), prior to the formation of the NSB, Barrow had a small police force that was 

supported by tax revenues from the liquor store. There were, in addition, a number of village constables 

resident in the villages, supplemented by an often unpaid person, as necessary. Although official law 

enforcement agencies had little presence in North Slope communities, order was also maintained in the villages 

by means of traditional social sanctions. In the words of Samuel Simmonds, an elder in Barrow, a malefactor 

would be met with “the frowning of the village” (Anon., 2003:13). Moreover, village IRA councils had the 

authority to act as a judicial body (Smythe and Worl, 1985). 

58 Travel by vehicles within the region is possible on a temporary basis in winter in some areas by “ice roads” 

(Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2004). The NSB maintains approximately 43 miles 

of ice roads annually for winter use. Cat-trains, a form of roadless travel, are used in the North Slope area to 

transport freight from Barrow. 

59 The only road to the North Slope, the Dalton Highway, was built in the 1970s. It parallels the trans-Alaska 

pipeline from Fairbanks to Deadhorse/Prudhoe Bay, and serves mainly as a freight corridor to the oil fields and 

a summer excursion for tourists (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2004). Historically, 

only the portion of the highway from Livengood to the Yukon River Bridge, and later Disaster Creek, was open 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

174 Final

round access. Smaller commuter airlines travel between Barrow and the smaller communities in the 

Borough. All airports on the North Slope except those in Barrow and Deadhorse are owned and 

operated by the NSB (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2004).60 The stateowned Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial Airport at Barrow is the regional transportation center for the 

Borough, with jet service connections to the state’s larger cities; however, air travel service to Point 

Hope is based in Kotzebue, and the main service for Anaktuvuk Pass is from Fairbanks. Weather still 

sometimes precludes flights into many North Slope villages, especially during the summer when fog 

can be heavy. 

The only other major mode of transportation between the North Slope and areas outside the region 

are oceangoing freight barges that travel to Barrow and other coastal communities in late summer 

(National Research Council, 2003). Cars, school buses, heavy equipment, gasoline, modular house 

units, building supplies and other items are brought in aboard this barge. The Arctic coast has no deep 

water ports; consequently, smaller craft are used to move cargo from vessels anchored offshore. 

The National Research Council (2003) noted that the North Slope’s isolation from major 

transportation routes and the area’s inability to produce construction materials and agricultural 

products mean that the prices of goods and the cost of transporting them to the North Slope are 

considerably higher than in the rest of Alaska or the continental United States (see Section 7.1.3). 

Moreover, North Slope residents pay the highest cost per mile to fly than just about anywhere else in 

Alaska (North Slope Borough, 2005c). Nevertheless, the changes in transportation that have occurred 

over the past four decades have had profound effects on North Slope households. One tangible 

outcome of the improvement in airports and establishment/expansion of scheduled air service is that 

the needs of North Slope residents for such things as visiting family and friends, business and health 

care are better met. These improvements have also supported growth in certain non-oil related 

industries such as tourism. Increased opportunities for air travel facilitated contact among North Slope 

communities that were formerly more isolated from each other. The increased inter-village contact 

and movement served to strengthen the Iñupiat identity as a member of a region-wide community 

known as the North Slope Iñupiat who share common interests, concerns and cultural values (Worl et 

al., 1981). Finally, as will be discussed in Section 7.1.5, changes in transportation have dramatically 

influenced the pursuit of subsistence activities. 

7.1.1.7 Communication 

When Eben Hopson was elected to be the first mayor of the NSB in 1972, he stated that the single 

greatest management problem of the Borough and of the Alaska Native corporations was lack of 

adequate communications technology (Eben Hopson Memorial Archives, 2004b). At that time even 

basic residential telephone service was poor or absent. Through the 1970s, Barrow was the only 

village with a telephone company (General Telephone of Alaska) providing local service to private 

subscribers (Underwood et al., 1978). Other villages typically only had a single public dial telephone 

or no telephone service at all (Smythe and Worl, 1985). Residents relied on citizens’ band radios for 

inter-village communication and during trips to subsistence production areas (Underwood et al., 

1978; Worl and McMillan, 1981). Hopson noted that modern communications technology was 

 

to the public. In 1995, the highway was opened to public access as far as the security gate at Deadhorse. 

Beyond the security gate, the oil roads are privately owned and maintained. 

60 The airport at Deadhorse is not a community airport, but it serves an important function of transfer of 

passengers, mail, and freight in support of the oil exploration in the Prudhoe Bay area (Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities, 2004). Its enplanements of oil workers and related personnel are largely 

from Anchorage on Alaska Airlines jet aircraft with workers entering and leaving the area every three or four 

weeks. Bypass mail destined for Nuiqsut or Kaktovik is brought to the Deadhorse airport on the Dalton Highway 

from Anchorage or Fairbanks and then flown out to these communities. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 175 

necessary for the improvement of health care and education, the development of local government 

and the facilitation of economic development (Eben Hopson Memorial Archives, 2004c). The Alaska 

Federation of Natives resolved to provide leadership in the development of a village-serving satellite 

communications network to be aimed at village health and education programs and improved village 

telephone and television service. And the newly-created NSB planned the development of a regional 

communications utility to begin with telephone service at Prudhoe Bay. 

Although the Borough eventually halted its telephone service project, major improvements in 

communication facilities occurred on the North Slope during the 1970s and 1980s. In the mid-1970s, 

RCA Alascom constructed telecommunications satellite earth stations in a number of North Slope 

communities (Underwood et al., 1978). In 1980, the Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative 

(ASTAC) was certified by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission. By 1982, individual homes in the 

villages other than Barrow were receiving telephone service (even then they had party lines until 

private lines were established). There are still no land lines from village to village—telephone 

communication relies on satellite transmission. In 2000, ASTAC acquired the GTE/Alaska Barrow 

telephone system. Today, ASTAC provides long distance and local phone services (including cellular 

(wireless) service) across the North Slope and also sells dial up and DSL Internet access.61 General 

Communication, Inc. also offers long-distance telephone and Internet service to North Slope 

residents. 

The NSB operates a state-of-the-art video production facility, which produces cultural and 

informational programming (NSBSD, 2005c). Region-wide business meetings and educational classes 

are held through the Borough’s teleconference network. Barrow residents are able to participate in 

state government hearings through Alaska’s legislative audio-conference network. In addition, each 

North Slope village has a large, modern, state-of-the art school with advanced computer facilities and 

video-conferencing for interactive delivery of classes. A two-way videoconferencing program 

originating from a high school studio in Barrow transmits video, text, and graphics to the North Slope’s 

remote schools via a full-time dedicated satellite link. Some residents believe that the access to the 

Internet increasingly will provide people with education without the cost of travel or absence from the 

village (National Research Council, 2003). 

Barrow’s AM/FM public radio station KBRW broadcasts a wide variety of music and information in 

English and Iñupiaq 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Television first came to Barrow in 1967 (Hess, 

1993). Early on the NSB recognized that television and other media could be a powerful tool for 

altering public perceptions outside the region in terms of more clearly stating the concerns of the 

region and soliciting support. Worl et al. (1981:129-30) stated: 

Both the NSB and ASRC knew the value of major public relations efforts aimed at larger 

audiences. Taking advantage of technical advances in regional and statewide television 

broadcast capabilities, of local media subsidiaries, and of joint ventures with nonlocal media 

enterprises, the region began to broadcast its message to the outside...The NSB wanted to 

improve the public image of the region by communicating directly to the world outside the 

region, to allow those unfamiliar with the local community to perceive the Iñupiat and their 

concerns the way the Iñupiat saw themselves. 

In addition, it is likely that cable television, now common in North Slope households, accelerated 

cultural changes (National Research Council, 2003). According to some analysts, however, concerns 

 

61 ASTAC’s current members include individuals in all eight North Slope villages, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 

Conoco/Phillips Alaska Inc., Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., VECO, Schumberger, Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation, and various state and federal agencies. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

176 Final

that television would contribute to significant changes in family interaction appear to be unfounded. 

For example, Smythe and Worl (1985) described the impacts of television in Kaktovik as follows: 

Television has become a prominent part of visiting interactions since it was introduced into 

Kaktovik three years ago. At first appearance it seems to dominate social behavior. An 

assumption which is commonly made is that social interaction decreases with the 

introduction of television. However, indications are that it, in fact, serves as a focal point of a 

high level of social interaction. 

Members of the family gather around the television for several hours an evening, and visitors 

remain until the station signs off in the early hours of the morning. Individuals do not 

necessarily focus their entire attention on the television but participate in continual 

conversation about the programs or other events. Adults play with young children as they 

watch. The following day, television often serves as a topic of conversation. While television is 

bringing the outside world into the Kaktovik homes, it does not appear to be decreasing social 

interaction.62

Nevertheless, the social impacts of the introduction of modern communication technology into North 

Slope communities may not be entirely positive. The National Research Council (1994), for instance, 

indicated that television has promoted the use of English among younger generations of Iñupiat.63

While many adults and elders continue to speak Iñupiaq as a first language, there is concern about 

the younger generation’s lack of knowledge of the language (National Research Council, 2003). 

Speaking Iñupiaq is still a strongly valued cultural characteristic. The language is particularly important 

because of its vocabulary for identifying environmental conditions of ice and snow as well as the 

characteristics of animals and their behavior (Nelson, 1982). It has been noted that one cannot attain 

the full benefit of Iñupiaq by simply incorporating individual words into English as technical jargon. 

The very structure of Iñupiaq helps deal with situations in a unique environment. What’s more, the 

traditional language has a broader cultural value. As Worl at al. (1981:75) state, “In times of stress and 

indecision about certain changes, in times where rhetoric is used to reify values, in times when claims 

to leadership must be validated, the Iñupiat, particularly the older, more conservative members of the 

community turn to the use of Inupiaq as a central issue.” 

Over the years the North Slope Iñupiat have undertaken activities to preserve, foster and promote 

their traditional language. The NSB Assembly established the NSB Iñupiat Language Commission in 

1977 to seek methods to perpetuate the language (Worl et al., 1981). This commission, which later 

became part of the Commission on Iñupiaq History, Language and Culture, played a pivotal role in 

the development of an Iñupiaq writing system and dictionary. In addition, since the 1970s North 

Slope schools have adopted bilingual programs in the hope of continuing the use of Iñupiaq. The NSB 

School District’s Bilingual Department has currently developed an Iñupiaq immersion curriculum for 

preschool through upper grades to teach children how to speak and read Iñupiaq.64

 

62 Smythe and Worl (1985), however, reported that television may have reduced the participation of Wainwright 

residents in organized community activities, particularly in public meetings. 

63 The National Research Council (1994) stated that formal education has also contributed to the increased use 

of English among the Iñupiat. As discussed by Sampson (2002), the erosion of the Iñupiaq language began in 

the early 20th century when the BIA adopted a policy of repressing the Native language in its school system. 

64 According to the NSBSD (2005d), it currently employs two main approaches to bilingual education—”At the 

elementary level, children whose parents opt to have them in the Iñupiaq Language Program, are placed in an 

Iñupiaq as a Second Language setting with instruction occurring for a duration of anywhere from 20-30 minutes 

per day. Parents who live in Barrow also have the option of placing their children in the Iñupiaq Immersion 

Program where instruction is delivered in Iñupiaq from preschool through fourth grade and are transitioned into 

English with 90 minutes of instruction in the Iñupiaq language at fifth grade. Children who are in the middle 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 177 

7.1.1.8 Other Community Services 

Over the years, the NSB has also supported other activities and services that have enhanced the 

quality of life in North Slope villages. For example, the NSB has supported various programs and other 

activities that the Iñupiat felt would preserve and maintain their culture (Worl et al., 1981). The NSB 

Iñupiat History, Language and Culture Commission has documented and promoted Iñupiat life 

through activities, research and celebrations. The Commission currently maintains an archive for local 

oral histories, assists in the operation of the Iñupiat Heritage Center, and actively pursues the 

repatriation of cultural artifacts and remains under the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act. In addition, the NSB has sponsored an annual or biennial Elders Conference since 

1978 and a semi-regular winter cultural celebration called Kivgiq since 1988 (Hess, 1993). 

Since the region’s subsistence economy depends on the health of animal populations, the NSB has 

assumed management of its wildlife resources—the only local government in Alaska to do so. Through 

its Department of Wildlife Management (DWM) the NSB undertakes scientific research and 

monitoring of wildlife stocks. An on-going bowhead whale census off Point Barrow is carried out by 

the DWM on behalf of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration.65 The subsistence quota for Alaska Natives established by the 

International Whaling Commission is based in part upon these population estimates (Ahmaogak, 

2000). 

7.1.2 Employment and Income 

This section provides an overview of the change in income-generating opportunities for North Slope 

households during the study period. A detailed analysis of shifts in employment by economic sectors 

or industries is provided in Chapter 3 of this report. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, employment opportunities in North Slope communities during the 1950s 

and 1960s were limited. More wage jobs existed in larger villages such as Barrow, but even there 

employment tended to be intermittent. The inception of the NSB and ASRC in the 1970s led to the 

creation of hundreds of new jobs in North Slope villages. An extensive household survey conducted 

on the North Slope found that the NSB supplied half the jobs Iñupiat adults held in 1977, and ASRC 

supplied another one-quarter of all the jobs Iñupiat adults had that year (Kruse et al., 1981). Thus, 

two organizations that did not exist in 1970 supplied three out of four jobs for Iñupiat workers in 

1977. NSB capital expenditures were the driving force behind local employment, and most of the 

jobs created were public works and construction jobs. 

The number of jobs made available by the NSB government to North Slope residents increased even 

further in the early 1980s as the NSB expanded its capital improvements program. Total regional 

employment among the resident population increased from 1,677 in 1980 to 2,521 in 1988 (NSB 

Department of Planning and Community Services, 1995). The NSB accounted for 58 to 60 percent of 

all resident jobs in the region. In 1988, direct NSB government employment accounted for an average 

of 70 percent of total village employment in Kaktovik, Anaktuvuk Pass, Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, and Point 

Lay. During the 1980s, according to one observer, “Jobs were plentiful and high paying. Young 

people fresh out of high school earned as much as $70,000 a year. Anyone who desired could find 

work” (Hess, 1993). In addition, both the NSB and ASRC implemented generous “subsistence leave” 

 

school in Barrow receive instruction in the Iñupiaq language for an uninterrupted duration of 80 minutes per 

session alternating classes every other day. Secondary school students receive instruction as an elective.” 65 In 1982, an agreement between the AEWC and the North Slope Borough was formalized whereby the NSB 

would be responsible for providing the AEWC with technical advice on scientific issues related to the bowhead 

whale (Freeman, 1989). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

178 Final

policies (Worl and Smythe, 1986).66 The NSB accepted the high costs of liberal wages and hiring 

practices in order to channel employment and income to Iñupiat residents (Kruse at al., 1983). 

The most recent census conducted by the NSB indicates that the Borough continues to be the largest 

employer in the region (Circumpolar Research Associates, 2004). The census report noted, however, 

that Borough government employment opportunities have declined from 41 percent of all working 

residents in 1998 to 33 percent in 2003. When the North Slope Borough School District and Ilisagvik 

College are included, Borough government employees accounted for 54 percent of the region’s 

employed resident labor force in 2003, down from 56 percent in 1998. 

Oil exploration at Prudhoe Bay during the late 1960s was followed by construction of the TransAlaska Pipeline System in the mid-1970s. Oil production began in 1977. While Alaska Native 

employment during pipeline construction was quite high overall, it was short-term. As noted in 

Chapter 3, the petroleum industry has had little direct effect on the employment and income of the 

North Slope Iñupiat. A 1977 household survey conducted on the North Slope found that employment 

with oil or pipeline companies accounted for only 14 percent of the jobs held by Iñupiat (Kruse et al., 

1981). More recently, a 1993 study conducted by the Minerals Management Service indicated that 

less than one percent of more than 6,000 Prudhoe Bay jobs were held by Alaska Natives (ISER, 1993). 

There have been several reasons for the relatively low employment of Iñupiat by the oil producers 

and their contractors and sub-contractors. Most jobs required a high skill level, and whereas the 

development phase required high peak employment for a short time, production employment levels 

were substantially lower (Tuck and Huskey, 1986). The jobs that were offered to Iñupiat were viewed 

by many as unattractive—the jobs were menial and/or paid the same or less wages as jobs near home 

(Kruse et al., 1983). Moreover, many Iñupiat were unwilling to commit to a steady shift, especially if it 

conflicted with hunting opportunities or village activities. In contrast, the NSB and ASRC permitted 

Iñupiat employees to follow an intermittent work pattern. 

The number of businesses in the local service sector has grown, primarily as a result of local 

government spending. This expansion of commercial enterprises has mostly occurred in Barrow, 

which now offers five hotels, seven restaurants, a dry cleaner and a large modern supermarket and 

merchandise store. Many of these businesses are owned by non-Iñupiat. The small size of the 

population and relatively numerous public sector opportunities (for example, in the ASRC and village 

corporations) to apply entrepreneurial skills may have limited the number of Iñupiat available to take 

advantage of business opportunities in the private sector (Tuck and Huskey, 1986; Worl and Smythe, 

1986). Notwithstanding these potential limitations, Worl and Smythe (1986) reported that the 

expansion of the capital economy, the socialization of Iñupiat into the capital economy through their 

occupational experiences in the Native corporations and the NSB (rather than formal education in 

business), and an accumulation of surplus capital stimulated the development of a growing class of 

Iñupiat entrepreneurs on the North Slope. 

Investments during the oil boom led to relatively little economic development or diversity in other 

North Slope communities. Most of the private sector jobs in the smaller villages are provided by the 

Alaska Native corporations and their affiliates. Tourism has existed as a minor primary industry on the 

North Slope for many years. Tours have been operating in Barrow since the early 1950s. Today, it is 

estimated that about 25,000 persons visit the North Slope annually, with most tourists traveling on 

packaged tours (DCCED, 2004b). Local officials report that the region’s services, while adequate to 

support a limited expansion in local visitation, cannot accommodate large or sudden increases in 

 

66 Kleinfeld et al. (1983) reported that during the whaling season NSB operations virtually came to a halt as 

workers participated in whaling activities. The authors also noted that workers irregularly absent from work for 

subsistence or other reasons were usually rehired. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 179 

visitors at this time (DCCED, 2004b). A significant cottage industry in North Slope communities 

produces a wide array of arts and crafts (e.g., carved ivory, baleen baskets and fur parkas) for sale in 

local and outside tourist markets. Several strategies in use or under consideration to help capture a 

greater share of cultural tourist dollars include the formation of cooperatives for selling Native arts and 

crafts, and greater use of the Internet making it easier for local artists to reach domestic and 

international markets with their unique work (DCCED, 2004b). 

The availability of local, high paying jobs adapted in some respects to Iñupiat life styles had different 

effects on North Slope men and women (Kleinfeld et al., 1983). As jobs became available, Iñupiat 

women surged into the labor force. The aforementioned 1977 household survey conducted by Kruse 

et al. (1981) showed that the percentage of Iñupiat women holding jobs doubled between 1970 and 

1977, while the percentage of men in the work force apparently changed little during the same 

period. Under the NSB’s local hire program Iñupiat men took the majority of construction-related jobs 

created by the CIP during the 1970s; these jobs were highly paid, seasonal, and offered enough 

flexibility to allow men to continue subsistence hunting (Kleinfeld et al., 1983; Worl and Smythe, 

1986). Iñupiat women tended to hold lower-paying, but permanent, clerical jobs in the NSB 

administration (Worl and Smythe, 1986). Men filled the top positions in ASRC as well as in the NSB. 

By the late 1970s, however, women had begun to move from “pink collar” clerical jobs into 

managerial and administrative positions (Worl and Smythe, 1986). 

The report for the 1998-1999 NSB census stated that an increasing proportion of North Slope jobs are 

short-term and/or part-time employment, and there is a high level of underemployment among the 

resident population (Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999). According to this report, most of the 

North Slope residents who are underemployed are Iñupiat. The most recent census report indicated 

that high unemployment and underemployment remain characteristics of the North Slope, although 

the population decline in some communities has mitigated these conditions to some extent 

(Circumpolar Research Associates, 2004). 

7.1.2.1 Income 

The most immediate and obvious accompaniment of the increased economic activity during the 

1970s described above was the sudden enrichment of North Slope residents. The incomes of 

households on the North Slope increased sharply during this period. Median income (adjusted to 

2001 dollars) increased from $16,919 per household in 1959, to $62,756 per household by 1979, an 

increase of 370 percent (Table 7-6). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

180 Final

Table 7-6. Median Household Income of North Slope Residents, 1959, 1969, 1979, 1989, and 19991

 Year United States Alaska North Slope 

Median Income of all Households (2001 Dollars)1

19592 25,461 32,861 16,919 

1969 37,107 46,796 33,607 

1979 39,209 50,828 62,756 

1989 41,760 57,533 70,129 

1999 43,918 53,934 66,068 

Median Income of White Households (2001 Dollars)1

19592,3 26,509 36,258 30,4534

1979 35,360 54,588 88,766 

1999 45,183 55,900 95,418 

Median Income of Alaska Native Households (2001 Dollars)1

19592 14,219 15,020 15,511 

1979 24,512 25,386 59,616 

1999 30,599 33,140 54,034 

Median Income of Alaska Native Households as a Percent of Median Income of White Households 

19592 53.6 41.4 50.9 

1979 69.3 46.5 67.2 

1999 67.7 59.3 56.6 

1

 Adjusted to 2001 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index 

for the Anchorage metropolitan statistical area. 

2

 Median family income. 

3 “Non-white” category. 

4 Estimated using a linear interpolation of the income range 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 181 

Table 7-7. Median Household Income in North Slope Communities, 1959, 1969, 1979, 1989, and 19991

 Year 

Anaktuvuk 

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut Pt. Hope Pt. Lay Wainwright 

Median Income of all Households (2001 Dollars)1

19592 - - - - - - - -

1969 - - - - - - - -

1979 14,722 66,902 68,916 84,530 56,250 47,858 35,000 70,000

1989 51,815 78,297 78,764 64,261 44,723 66,398 68,892 46,314

1999 54,906 69,659 70,172 58,174 50,237 66,018 71,900 57,229

Median Income of White Households (2001 Dollars)1

19592,3 - - - - - - - -

1979 - - - - - - - -

1999 98,889 91,509 93,778 120,312 58,391 95,653 115,584 96,192

Median Income of Alaska Native Households (2001 Dollars)1

19592 - - - - - - - -

1979 - - - - - - - -

1999 53,162 68,166 53,087 55,559 46,501 62,313 63,403 55,342

Median Income of Alaska Native Households as a Percent of Median Income of White Households 

19592 - - - - - - - -

1979 - - - - - - - -

1999 53.8 74.5 56.6 46.2 79.6 65.1 54.9 57.5

1

 Adjusted to 2001 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index 

for the Anchorage metropolitan statistical area. 

2

 Median family income. 

3 “Non-white” category. 

4 Estimated using a linear interpolation of the income range 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Figure 7-1 illustrates the volatility of the per capita personal income of North Slope residents from 

1979 to 2000. 67 Per capita income was at its highest during the early 1980s when public and private 

construction projects peaked. Starting in 1984, the real per capita income in the region has shown a 

general downward trend. Despite this overall decline, North Slope residents have generally enjoyed 

higher real personal per capita incomes than the statewide average. 

 

67 Personal income is calculated as the sum of wage and salary disbursements, other labor income, proprietors’ 

income with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, rental income of persons with capital 

consumption adjustment, personal dividend income, personal interest income, and transfer payments to 

persons, less personal contributions for social insurance. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

182 Final

Figure 7-1. Per Capita Personal Income of North Slope Residents, 1969-20001

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999

Barrow North Slope Division North Slope Borough Alaska

1

 Adjusted to 2000 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index 

for the Anchorage metropolitan statistical area. 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

The total personal income generated in the region generally followed an upward trend from 1969 to 

2000 (Figure 7-2). However, Figure 7-3 shows that much of the growth in the last ten years has been 

due to increases in transfer payments and investment income (dividends, interests, and rents). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 183 

Figure 7-2. Total Personal Income of North Slope Residents, 1969-20001

$30

$55

$80

$105

$130

$155

$180

$205

$230

1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999

(in million dollars)

Barrow-North Slope Division North Slope Borough

1

 Adjusted to 2000 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index 

for the Anchorage metropolitan statistical area. 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

Figure 7-3. Net Earnings, Transfer Payments, and Dividends, Interest, and Rent of North Slope Residents, 

1969-20001

 

$0

$30,000

$60,000

$90,000

$120,000

$150,000

$180,000

1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999

Real Net Earnings- Barrow-NS Division

Real Transfer Payments-Barrow NS Division

Real Dividends, Interest, and Rent-Barrow-NS Division

Real Net Earnings-North Slope Borough

Real Transfer Payments-North Slope Borough

Real Dividends, Interest, and Rent-North Slope Borough

1

 Adjusted to 2000 dollars using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index 

for the Anchorage metropolitan statistical area. 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

184 Final

As shown in Table 7-8, the percent of families whose income was below the federal poverty level has 

declined substantially, although a slight increase occurred in 1999. This recent rise may be the result 

of the increasing proportion of North Slope jobs that are short-term and/or part-time employment. Of 

those families in the Borough whose incomes were below the poverty line in 1999, 86 percent were 

Alaska Natives. 

Table 7-8. Percent of North Slope Residents Whose Income was Below the Poverty Level, 1959-1999 

Year 

National 

Average 

Alaska 

State NSB 

Anaktuvuk

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut

Pt. 

Hope 

Pt. 

Lay Wainwright

Percent of Families with Income Below Poverty Level 

1959 1 18.5 14.6 43.1 - - - - - - - -

1969 9.7 11.6 27.7 - - - - - - - -

1979 9.1 9.4 10.8 - - - - - - - -

1989 9.97 6.8 8.2 12.5 16.3 7.3 18.5 15.5 6.5 0.0 4.5

1999 9.2 6.7 8.6 3.2 25.0 7.7 9.9 3.2 13.9 11.4 8.5

1

 The percentage of families whose incomes are below the poverty level was not reported in the census. The 

percent presented is the proportion of families with incomes less than $3,000 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

7.1.2.2 Employment Pattern 

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 1970, 52 percent of the residents of the Barrow Census 

Division who were 16 years old and over were not employed or seeking work. The size of the labor 

force (i.e., the number of people who are employed or attempting to find work) likely rose and fell in 

the mid-1970s with the beginning and end of construction of the TAPS and Dalton Highway. During 

the 1980s, the labor force steadily increased as a result of employment opportunities created by the 

NSB; for example, the Borough’s CIP expended many millions of dollars and employed a substantial 

number of North Slope residents. The unemployment rate was low in 1980, but many jobs, such as 

construction work, were short-term. As discussed above, in recent years the number of Iñupiat who 

are involuntarily underemployed or unemployed has increased due, at least in part, to a decline in 

Borough government employment opportunities. For example, the completion of water and sewer 

projects outside of Barrow led to a reduction of employment in the CIP (Circumpolar Research 

Associates, 2004). 

Table 7-9. Unemployment and Underemployment Rate of North Slope Residents, 1980-2003 

 1980 1989 1993 1998 2003 

Size of labor force 2,360 2,955 3,510 3,866 3,085

Rate of unemployment 7.5% 14.7% 11.3% 15.5% 22.9%

Rate of underemployment 

(worked less than 40 weeks) 

50.2% - 24.1% 27.3% 29.7%

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Source: Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981; Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999, 2004; North Slope Borough 

Department of Planning and Community Services, 1989, 1995; U.S. Census Bureau. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 185 

The not-working rate is another measure calculated from census data to characterize the employment 

situation of North Slope residents (McDiarmid et al., 1998). It is the percentage of the working-age 

(16 years and over) population not employed for wages. In 1989, the not-working rate was 34 

percent for Native residents and 5 percent for White residents. By 1999, the not-working rate for 

Native residents was 28 percent and 7 percent for White residents. McDiarmid et al. (1998) note that 

not working does not necessarily indicate the unavailability of suitable jobs: 

The drawback of the not working rate is that a certain portion of any group will not be 

interested in working for a variety of reasons. Some will be students or homemakers. Some 

will be disabled. Others will simply choose not to enter the labor market. Many Alaska 

Natives will choose to engage in subsistence activities for part of the year rather than work in 

the market economy. All are valid reasons to be without wage paying jobs. 

According to McDiarmid et al. (1998) job opportunities are not a major limiting factor in finding work 

in the NSB. Rather, the lower average likely underscores the preference of many Iñupiat to devote a 

part of the year to subsistence activities rather than wage employment (Section 7.1.5). 

Yet another way to characterize wage employment among North Slope residents is to calculate 

average weeks worked over the year. Census data show that for Native NSB residents who worked in 

1989, the average weeks reported worked was about 33 (Table 7-10). The comparable figure for 

White residents was 43 weeks. The average weeks worked did not change appreciably in 1999. 

Including the non-working resident population in the calculation of average weeks worked increases 

the difference between Natives and Whites. In 1999, for example, the average weeks worked across 

the entire working-age resident population was 22 for Natives and 40 for Whites – a difference of 18 

weeks (Table 7-11). Again, some of the difference is due to the desire among many Iñupiat to spend 

time in subsistence. However, the decrease in the average number of weeks worked by Natives 

between 1989 and 1999 suggests that a shortage of suitable employment may also have become a 

factor. 

Table 7-10. Average Number of Weeks Worked by Employed Working-Age North Slope Residents, 

1989 and 19991

Year 

United 

States Alaska NSB 

Anaktuvuk

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut

Pt. 

Hope 

Pt. 

Lay Wainwright

White Working-Age Residents 

1989 - - 42.8 - - - - - - - -

1999 44.2 41.9 43.5 42.3 45.9 44.4 38.0 39.4 36.3 44.1 40.1

Native Working-Age Residents 

1989 - - 32.7 - - - - - - - -

1999 40.6 32.5 31.1 27.2 30.6 31.6 30.7 31.8 28.0 32.6 32.2

1

 The average weeks worked was not reported in the 1990 or 2000 census. Estimates were calculated by 

interpolating census data. 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

186 Final

Table 7-11. Average Number of Weeks Worked by All Working-Age North Slope Residents, 1989 and 19991

Year 

United 

States Alaska NSB 

Anaktuvuk

Pass Atqasuk Barrow Kaktovik Nuiqsut

Pt. 

Hope 

Pt. 

Lay Wainwright

White Working-Age Residents 

1989 - - 40.6 - - - - - - - -

1999 31.0 33.8 40.4 42.3 45.9 41.3 36.1 35.1 30.5 44.1 37.5

Native Working-Age Residents 

1989 - - 24.4 - - - - - - - -

1999 27.4 22.5 22.3 17.5 20.0 22.7 23.8 24.1 18.8 28.0 23.9

1

 The average weeks worked was not reported in the 1990 or 2000 census. Estimates were calculated by 

interpolating census data. 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

7.1.2.3 Income Distribution 

Chance (1990) and Bodenhorn (2000) suggest that significant income inequalities have begun to 

emerge, both among the Iñupiat and between Iñupiat and non-Iñupiat. Median household income 

data presented in Table 7-6 confirm the notion that there are significant income differences between 

Iñupiat and non-Iñupiat households, but it is likely that these differences are long-standing. In 1959, 

the median income of Alaska Native households was only about half of that of white households. In 

1979, Alaska Native median household income on the North Slope increased to 67 percent of white 

median household income, but in 1999, the median income of Alaska Native households in the 

region dropped back down to 57 percent of that of white households. The on-going income disparity 

reflects the fact that employment opportunities taken by non-Iñupiat are not a random cross-section 

of jobs in the community, as they must entail compensation sufficient to overcome the drawbacks of 

relocating to the North Slope. 

However, a preliminary analysis of the available data does not support the suggestion that significant 

income inequalities have emerged among Iñupiat households. This analysis employed a commonly 

used measure, the Gini coefficient (also known as the index of income concentration), to measure the 

dispersion of household income. The Gini coefficient ranges from 0.0, when all households have 

equal shares of income, to 1.0, when only one household has any income. Because real economies 

have some, but not complete inequality, Gini coefficients are between zero and one. 

Gini coefficients were calculated by the Northern Economics, Inc. and EDAW, Inc. study team using 

household income class interval data reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Data were obtained for the 

years 1959, 1989, and 1999 in order to examine long term changes in income distribution among 

Iñupiat households, as well as short term changes during a period (1990s) when employment 

opportunities in North Slope communities were reportedly declining. The Gini coefficient for each 

time period was computed using the following equation, and the results are presented in Table 7-12: 

k-1 

G = 1 - ∑ (Yi+1 + Yi) (Xi+1 – Xi) 

I=0 

where 

G = Gini coefficient 

X = Cumulated percentage of households 

Y = Cumulated percentage of household income 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 187 

Table 7-12. Income Distribution of Alaska Native Households on the North Slope, 1959, 1989, and 1999 

 1959 1 1989 1999 

Percent 

of 

households 

Percent 

of total 

income 

Percent 

of 

households

Percent

of total 

income 

Percent 

of 

households

Percent

of total 

income 

Less than 

$1,000 7.6 1.0 

Less than 

$5,000 4.8 0.3 

Less than 

$10,000 9.8 0.8 

$1,000 - 

$1,999 26.6 10.0 

$5,000 to 

$9,999 6.2 1.0 

$10,000 to 

$14,999 5.1 1.1 

$2,000 - 

$2,999 11.4 7.1 

$10,000 to 

$14,999 7.2 1.9 

$15,000 to 

$19,999 5.6 1.7 

$3,000 - 

$3,999 10.1 8.9 

$15,000 to 

$24,999 11.0 4.6 

$20,000 to 

$24,999 3.3 1.2 

$4,000 - 

$4,999 9.7 11.0 

$25,000 to 

$34,999 10.7 6.7 

$25,000 to 

$29,999 3.1 1.5 

$5,000 - 

$5,999 8.0 11.1 

$35,000 to 

$49,999 19.1 16.9 

$30,000 to 

$34,999 4.2 2.3 

$6,000 - 

$6,999 9.7 15.8 

$50,000 to 

$74,999 22.3 29.0 

$35,000 to 

$39,999 5.8 3.7 

$7,000 - 

$7,999 3.4 6.4 

$75,000 to 

$99,999 12.8 23.4 

$40,000 to 

$44,999 5.9 4.3 

$8,000 - 

$8,999 13.5 28.8 

$100,000 

or more 5.9 16.3 

$45,000 to 

$49,999 4.5 3.7 

 

$50,000 to 

$59,999 10.5 10.3 

 

$60,000 to 

$74,999 11.9 13.7 

 

$75,000 to 

$99,999 17.2 25.6 

 

$100,000 to 

$124,999 6.8 13.0 

 

$125,000 to 

$149,999 2.9 6.9 

 

$150,000 to 

$199,999 2.3 6.9 

 

$200,000 or 

more 1.1 3.4 

Gini 

Coefficient2

 0.37 0.37 0.38 

1 Includes only the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Barrow, and Wainwright. 

2

 For a particular year, an estimate of the total income of each close-end income class interval was obtained by 

multiplying the number of households in each income interval by an assumed mean for that interval. In this analysis, 

the assumed mean was set at the midpoint of each income interval. Estimates of total income for the open-end 

intervals in 1989 and 1999 ($100,000 or more and $200,000 or more, respectively) were obtained by subtracting the 

sum of the total incomes for the close-end intervals from the aggregate household income for Alaska Natives in the 

North Slope Borough reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The percentages of households and total income 

represented by each income class interval were then calculated. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

188 Final

As shown in Table 7-12, this preliminary analysis of income distribution indicates that the level of 

income equality among Native Alaska households on the North Slope was remarkably stable over the 

years measured. This stability is in marked contrast to the growing income inequality among 

households in the U.S. as a whole that began in the early 1980s (Jones and Weinberg, 2000). In 1967, 

the Gini coefficient for U.S. households was 0.399. By 1990, the Gini coefficient was 0.428, and in 

1999, it was 0.457.68 It is uncertain why income distribution has been so stable among Iñupiat 

households, but a contributing factor may be a constant relative demand for unskilled and skilled 

labor in North Slope communities. For example, it is possible that changes in the regional economy, 

such as the decrease in full-time employment opportunities that occurred on the North Slope during 

the 1990s, affect the entire labor market. To more fully understand patterns of income distribution in 

North Slope communities, additional measures of income distribution need to be applied to existing 

census data, and a detailed analysis of possible factors that might explain observed patterns is 

required. 

7.1.3 Cost of Living 

While salaries of workers on the North Slope, in both the private and public sectors, are high, it is 

equally true that the cost of living in the region is among the highest in the nation, if not actually being 

the highest. In any discussion of the “economic well-being” of residents of the North Slope, one 

should take into consideration that the cost of living in Barrow is high. Both the 1993/1994 and 

1998/1999 NSB census reports stated that the cost of living in Barrow and other North Slope 

communities was approximately 278 percent of the “Lower-48” average and 214 percent of the 

Anchorage average (Circumpolar Research Associates, 2004). In 2003, the cost of a “typical market 

basket” in Barrow was 93 percent higher than the cost in Anchorage (Circumpolar Research 

Associates, 2004). Similar proportionate increases occur for vehicles, construction materials, 

appliances, tools, and other consumer goods. For example, according to a 2004 construction cost 

survey, conducted for the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Barrow bears the highest material 

costs among eleven surveyed Alaska locations. A basic construction market basket that does not 

include doors or windows was quoted to cost $37,873, exceeding the Anchorage price by 114 

percent (ADOLWD, Construction Cost Survey, 2005). 

This exceptionally high cost of living more than offsets the higher income levels earned on the North 

Slope. In 1999, for example, the North Slope median household income was approximately 150 

percent of the median household income for the United States and 122 percent of the median 

household income of the State of Alaska. Because North Slope residents do not have greater per 

capita incomes than some of their counterparts in the rest of Alaska or in the United States in general, 

North Slope residents must accept a lower standard of living, rely to a greater extent on subsistence 

harvest, or both (National Research Council, 2003). 

The high cost of living on the North Slope is largely due to the absence of low cost transportation links 

to the outside world or between communities (NSB Department of Planning and Community 

Services, 1995). Air transportation and summer barge service represent the only transportation options 

for bringing goods to most residents. Few goods or services escape a substantial transportation 

premium. Moreover, the availability and selection of items is limited. For example, while Barrow has a 

 

68 Changes in the U.S. Census Bureau’s data collection methodology between 1992 and 1993 affected the 

measurement of income inequality (Jones and Weinberg, 2000). As a result of these changes and an inability to 

accurately measure their effects, comparisons of income inequality that bridge the years 1992 and 1993 should 

be treated with caution. However, other measures also indicate that the household income distribution in the 

U.S. became increasingly unequal beginning in the early 1980s (Jones and Weinberg, 2000). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 189 

large and well-stocked food store, the other villages have only small grocery services. Many people 

resort to ordering their groceries from businesses in Anchorage, Fairbanks, or the “Lower-48.” 

The cost to households of public services also is high, especially in the outlying villages. For example, 

the 1998-1999 household census conducted by Circumpolar Research Associates (1999) for the NSB 

found that Barrow experienced the lowest heating fuel costs on the North Slope, averaging $57 per 

household per month (Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999). In contrast, average household 

heating fuel costs in the seven outlying communities ranged from a low of $142 in Anaktuvuk Pass to 

a high of $238 in Kaktovik. Average monthly electrical costs were also lower in Barrow. The overall 

average for Barrow was $54. In the outlying communities the overall average residential electrical 

costs ranged from a low of $75 in Anaktuvuk to a high of $133 in Point Lay. The differences in 

heating and electrical costs between Barrow and other villages is primarily due to the fact that Barrow 

has access to a nearby natural gas field for heating and electrical generation,69 while the other 

communities must rely on diesel and heating fuel transported from Fairbanks, Cook Inlet, or even 

Puget Sound. 

The only utility for which the average monthly cost is substantially higher in Barrow than in other 

North Slope communities is water. According to the 1993 census conducted by the NSB Department 

of Planning and Community Services (1995), the average monthly household water costs for 

households connected to the Barrow utilidor system was $163. In contrast, average monthly water 

costs in the seven outlying communities for families of all sizes currently ranged from a low of $16 to a 

high of $40, depending on the specific community. However, it is important to bear in mind that in 

the early 1990s there were no flush toilets in any of the residences in the outlying villages and many 

individuals bathed at the school or other community facility (NSB Department of Planning and 

Community Services, 1995). More recently, the North Slope Borough Assembly has established a flat 

water rate of $69 for Barrow households, and water costs are expected to increase substantially in 

outlying villages once water and sewer projects are completed (Circumpolar Research Associates, 

1999). 

7.1.4 Demographic Shift 

The rapid improvement in economic well being experienced by North Slope communities during the 

1970s was followed by a significant demographic shift. The North Slope Iñupiat reversed their trend 

of moving from smaller to larger population centers (Worl, 1980). The influx of money and 

employment opportunities in communities provided an incentive to lure people back to their villages 

(Jorgensen, 1990). Between 1970 and 1993, for instance, the resident population of the North Slope 

more than doubled (Figure 7-4). Moreover, many of the Iñupiat that lived in Barrow returned to their 

smaller home villages (Knapp and Nebesky, 1983). Three villages that had been largely abandoned—

Nuiqsut, Point Lay and Atqasuk—were resettled in the 1970s. This return to small traditional villages 

reflected the preference of many Iñupiat for a rural lifestyle provided that modern public services and 

opportunities for employment and cash income were also available (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & 

Company, 1978). 

 

69 The Walikpa natural gas field (less than 10 miles from Barrow) was discovered and developed in the 1950s by 

the Navy. In contrast, space heating and electric power generation in the outlying villages is largely fueled by 

No. 2 fuel oil, which has a high transportation component in its cost. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

190 Final

Figure 7-4. North Slope Resident Population, 1939-2000 

1258

1678

2076

3075 3333 3368 3612

4199

5103 5372 5520

5979

6538

7555 7385

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1939 1950 1960 1970 1973 1975 1977 1980 1983 1985 1988 1990 1993 1998 2000

Population

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999 

Another factor that contributed to the population increase, especially the increase that occurred in 

Barrow, was the immigration of non-Iñupiat. In the Borough as a whole, the percentage of nonNatives in the resident population increased from 17 percent in 1970 to 27 percent in 1990 (Figure 

7-5). Non-Iñupiat outnumber Iñupiat in Barrow in the age group between 25 and 64 due to the larger 

number of non-Iñupiat males in this age group. 

More recently, there has been a decrease in the resident population of the North Slope. Declining 

operating revenues in both the NSB and North Slope Borough School District have translated into 

reduced employment opportunities, evidently resulting in out-migration (Circumpolar Research 

Associates, 2004). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 191 

Figure 7-5. Alaska Native and Non-Native Resident Population of the North Slope, 1970-20001

2800 3086

4366

5453

585

802

1613

1932

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1970 1980 1990 2000

Population

Non-Native

Native

1 Population totals may not equal those in Figure 7-5 because different data sources were used.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Another trend that started in the early 1980s was the increasing number of non-Iñupiat families who 

have established permanent residence in Barrow (Smythe and Worl, 1986). Some non-Iñupiat 

intermarried with local Iñupiat, while others decided to take advantage of the economic opportunities 

and become permanent residents (Smythe and Worl, 1985). However, the turnover of non-Iñupiat 

residents on the North Slope continues to be high, particularly in the smaller villages. Common 

reasons for the departure of non-Iñupiat residents include a perceived lack of educational 

opportunities for their children, loss of a specific employment opportunity, and the desire to retire in 

their place of origin. It is very uncommon for retirement age non-Iñupiat to remain on the North 

Slope, and it is unusual to have non-Iñupiat families present in the smaller villages that encompass 

more than a generational spread of working age adults and their offspring. This pattern is also 

influenced by the fact that there are few private sector jobs in the smaller communities. The residence 

pattern of non-Iñupiat on the North Slope results in a population with comparatively few members in 

younger or older age groups (Figure 7-6). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

192 Final

Figure 7-6. Age Distribution of the Alaska Native and Non-Native Resident Population of the North Slope, 

1998 

Source: Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999.

Prior to 1978, the non-Iñupiat population in Barrow was limited to Caucasians (Smythe and Worl, 

1985). The non-Iñupiat population has remained primarily Caucasian, but a trend that developed by 

1980 was an increase in the ethnicity among new migrants (Smythe and Worl, 1985). The nonIñupiat population is now markedly multiethnic which has introduced a new Asian and Spanishspeaking element into the local population. According to the 1993 NSB census, the following ethnic 

groups were represented by residents of Barrow: Iñupiat, Caucasion, Athabaskan, Aleut, “Other 

Alaskan Native”, Black, American Indian, Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Asian Indian, Filipino, 

Korean, Samoan, Hispanic, Iranian, Macedonian, and Serbian (NSB Department of Planning and 

Community Services, 1995). While the quality of interethnic relationships has improved since the 

1970s (Smythe and Worl, 1986), the influence of the non-Iñupiat group has increased as the number 

and range of the positions of authority held by non-Iñupiat expanded. Although the number of 

interethnic marriages increased, non-Iñupiat residents tended to limit their association with members 

of the Iñupiat community to employment and occasional social contact (Worl et al., 1981). 

7.1.5 Harvest of Subsistence Resources 

The use and importance of subsistence resources for households in North Slope communities has 

been a topic of ongoing discussion and research since explorers and researchers first encountered the 

Iñupiat (e.g., Lowenstein, 1986; Nelson, 1982; Rainey, 1947; Spencer, 1959). The rhythms and 

patterns of community life were traditionally structured by a seasonal round of harvesting different 

subsistence resources. By the beginning of the 20th century most of the indigenous hunting weapons 

had been replaced, converted to new material and form or relegated to roles of secondary 

importance. However, while hunting technology changed considerably, the game preferences have 

remained essentially the same to the present day. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 193 

As a result of expanded employment and education opportunities, the 1960s and 1970s saw an evernarrowing gap between Alaska Native and Western cultures (Lee, 1998). Early post-war research had 

predicted a waning of subsistence activities and the full integration of Alaska Natives into a cash 

economy (Jorgensen, 1990). VanStone (1960), for example, noted that it seemed likely that as more 

young people left the villages to complete their education and became more oriented toward a 

money economy, they would become correspondingly disoriented from village subsistence activities 

and would seek economic opportunities away from the villages. 

What actually occurred, however, was that higher levels of household cash income were directly 

correlated with peoples’ commitment to, and their returns from, natural resource harvesting (National 

Research Council, 1999). Young men in Iñupiat communities, for example, chose to balance wage 

employment with seasonal subsistence activities despite large numbers of high paying job 

opportunities (Kleinfeld et al., 1983). Research showed that young men participated in major 

subsistence activities as much as the older generation, and those who had been exposed to Western 

influences through outside schooling tended to be more interested in subsistence (Kruse, 1986). 

The 1993 NSB census found that 72 percent of Iñupiat households (but only 16 percent of the nonIñupiat households) obtained half or more than half of such food staples as meat, fish and birds from 

subsistence activities (NSB Department of Planning and Community Services, 1995). The importance 

of sharing among the North Slope Iñupiat is reflected in the fact that 28 percent of Iñupiat households 

reported that half or more than half of their food came from the subsistence activities of other 

households. Many households do not have the financial resources to harvest their own food. Others 

consist of elderly individuals or have no subsistence hunters. 

Wild foods and other products were traditionally traded among households within a community 

through extensive, non-commercial, kinship-based networks. Surveys of the harvest of subsistence 

resources in North Slope communities indicate that these resources continue to be important in 

household economies. Table 7-13 through Table 7-17 show information on subsistence fish and 

wildlife harvests in Barrow, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Lay and Wainwright. These data are from the 

Community Profile Database developed by the ADF&G Division of Subsistence. Data are available for 

only those North Slope villages and years shown. The percent of households harvesting the resources 

is the estimated percent of community households that successfully harvested subsistence resources 

based on sampled households for the study year. The percent of households receiving the resources is 

the estimated percentage of community households that reported receiving subsistence resources 

from one or more other households in the community based on sampled household responses for the 

study year. This figure is a measure of distribution and exchange of subsistence resources between 

households within the community. The percent of households giving the resources is the estimated 

percentage of community households that reported giving away subsistence resources to one or more 

other households in the community based on sampled household responses for the study year. This 

figure is another measure of distribution and exchange of subsistence resources between households. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

194 Final

Table 7-13. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Barrow, 1987, 1988, and 1989

1987 1988 1989 

Percent of households harvesting resources 58.0 50.0 61.0 

Percent of households receiving resources - - - 

Percent of households giving resources - - - 

Lower confidence limit for the estimated total pounds 

harvested by the community 1

- - - 

Estimated total pounds harvested by the community 621,067 614,669 872,092 

Upper confidence limit for estimated total pounds harvested 

by the community 1

- - - 

Per capita pounds harvested 2 205.9 203.8 289.2 

Average pounds of the resources harvested per household 3

 662.8 656.0 930.7 

1

 The confidence limit is two standard errors (approximate 95 percent confidence limit) from the estimated total. 2

 Computed by dividing estimated total pounds harvested by number of people in the community. 3

 Calculated as the average pounds harvested by the sample times the number of households in the community. 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Sources: Alaska Department of Fish and Game; NSB Department of Planning and Community Services; Alaska 

Department of Revenue. 

Table 7-14. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Kaktovik, 1985, 1986, and 1992. 

 1985 1986 1992 

Percent of households harvesting resources 90.5 87.2 89.4 

Percent of households receiving resources 100.0 100.0 91.5 

Percent of households giving resources 83.3 83.0 83.0 

Lower confidence limit for the estimated total pounds 

harvested by the community 

51,267.0 76,126.0 107,274.0 

Estimated total pounds harvested by the community 61,663.0 84,060.0 170,939.0 

Upper confidence limit for estimated total pounds harvested 

by the community 1 72,059.0 91,994.0 234,604.0 

Per capita pounds harvested 2 327.9 432.8 885.6 

Average pounds of the resources harvested per household 3

 1163.4 1501.1 2713.3 

1

 The confidence limit is two standard errors (approximate 95 percent confidence limit) from the estimated total. 2

 Computed by dividing estimated total pounds harvested by number of people in the community. 3

 Calculated as the average pounds harvested by the sample times the number of households in the community. 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Sources: Alaska Department of Fish and Game; NSB Department of Planning and Community Services; Alaska 

Department of Revenue. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 195 

Table 7-15. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Nuiqsut, 1985 and 1993. 

 1985 1993 

Percent of households harvesting resources 97.5 90.3 

Percent of households receiving resources 100.0 98.4 

Percent of households giving resources 95.0 91.9 

Lower confidence limit for the estimated total pounds harvested by the 

community 

135,601.0 199,188.0 

Estimated total pounds harvested by the community 160,035.0 267,818.0 

Upper confidence limit for estimated total pounds harvested by the 

community 1 184,469.0 336,448.0 

Per capita pounds harvested 2 399.2 741.7 

Average pounds of the resources harvested per household 3

 2105.7 2943.0 

1

 The confidence limit is two standard errors (approximate 95 percent confidence limit) from the estimated total. 2

 Computed by dividing estimated total pounds harvested by number of people in the community. 3

 Calculated as the average pounds harvested by the sample times the number of households in the community. 

Sources: Alaska Department of Fish and Game; NSB Department of Planning and Community Services; Alaska 

Department of Revenue. 

Table 7-16. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Point Lay, 1987 

 1987 

Percent of households harvesting resources 83.1 

Percent of households receiving resources 100.0 

Percent of households giving resources 88.7 

Lower confidence limit for the estimated total pounds harvested by the community - 

Estimated total pounds harvested by the community 107,321.0 

Upper confidence limit for estimated total pounds harvested by the community 1

 - 

Per capita pounds harvested 2 890.1 

Average pounds of the resources harvested per household 3

 2495.8 

1

 The confidence limit is two standard errors (approximate 95 percent confidence limit) from the estimated total. 2

 Computed by dividing estimated total pounds harvested by number of people in the community. 3

 Calculated as the average pounds harvested by the sample times the number of households in the community. 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Sources: Alaska Department of Fish and Game; NSB Department of Planning and Community Services; Alaska 

Department of Revenue. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

196 Final

Table 7-17. Harvest of Subsistence Resources, Wainwright, 1988 and 1989 

 1988 1989 

Percent of households harvesting resources - - 

Percent of households receiving resources - - 

Percent of households giving resources - - 

Lower confidence limit for the estimated total pounds harvested by the 

community 

- - 

Estimated total pounds harvested by the community 256,492.0 351,581.0 

Upper confidence limit for estimated total pounds harvested by the 

community 1 - - 

Per capita pounds harvested 2 507.9 751.2 

Average pounds of the resources harvested per household 3

 2068.5 2954.5 

1

 The confidence limit is two standard errors (approximate 95 percent confidence limit) from the estimated total. 2

 Computed by dividing estimated total pounds harvested by number of people in the community. 3

 Calculated as the average pounds harvested by the sample times the number of households in the community. 

- Data were unavailable for this report 

Sources: Alaska Department of Fish and Game; NSB Department of Planning and Community Services; Alaska 

Department of Revenue. 

According to the ADF&G surveys, the total annual harvest of wild foods is about 3.2 million pounds or 

about 434 pounds per person. Subsistence activity is significantly higher in the smaller communities 

outside the regional hub community of Barrow. While the average annual wild food harvest was 434 

pounds per person over the entire Borough, community by community it ranges from 203 to 890 

pounds per person. The amount of resources harvested may vary significantly from year to year with 

changes in the availability of subsistence species. Weather and ice conditions may preclude harvesting 

of resources even when species are in the area. 

The nutritional contribution of the annual wild food harvest is about 40 percent of the caloric 

requirements of the resident population. As a result of the high content of fish and meat in the 

traditional subsistence diet, residents consume on average almost three times the protein found in the 

typical American diet. Most of the subsistence wild food is composed of marine mammals (61 percent 

by weight), land mammals (23 percent), fish (13 percent) and birds and eggs (3 percent). Commonly 

harvested marine mammals include bowhead whale, beluga whale, walrus, bearded seal and ringed 

seal. Land mammals harvested include caribou, polar bear, moose, Dahl sheep and musk ox. Major 

fish varieties are whitefish, Arctic char, grayling and smelt. The type of food harvested varies 

considerably among communities based on the availability of wild species in a community’s 

traditional-use area. 

While the harvest and sharing of subsistence resources remains an integral part of community life on 

the North Slope, many jobs have been increasingly professionalized, and more individuals have had 

to forego part of the subsistence hunting and fishing cycle (Bodenhorn, 2000). As incomes have 

increased and time constraints have reduced the frequency and duration of trips to harvest resources, 

some residents have limited their subsistence harvests to the most desired species (Jorgensen, 1990). 

Increased income, moreover, led to the adoption of more efficient, reliable, useful, and lessdemanding subsistence technology (Lonner, 1986). For example, those with financial resources 

frequently counterbalance limited “free time” by using motorized equipment (e.g., three-wheelers, 

snow machines and outboard motors for boats) to reduce travel time (Alaska Consultants, Inc., 1981). 

Some even charter small planes to fly out to fish camp (Bodenhorn, 1989). The widespread use of 

modern modes of transportation also makes it possible for large numbers of people to concentrate in 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 197 

a single settlement and still hunt and fish over a large area (Burch, 1975). In short, cash derived from 

wage employment did not replace subsistence but underwrote it (Lonner, 1986). 

As noted in Chapter 2, the adoption of modern technology raised the cost of participating in 

subsistence activities. The 1998-1999 NSB census found that 39 percent of the Iñupiat households 

(21 percent of the non-Iñupiat households) spent at least $4,000 a year on subsistence activities (NSB 

Department of Planning and Community Services, 1995). Thirteen percent of the Iñupiat households 

spent more than $10,000 a year in pursuit of food for their households and their community. The 

expense of participating in subsistence activities tends to be higher in the outlying villages. In Point 

Lay for example, more than 57 percent of the households spent at least $4,000 a year on subsistence 

activities. 

Kerkvliet and Nebesky (1997) developed an empirical model to analyze how North Slope residents 

allocate time between labor and subsistence activities. Data were from the 1988-1989 census 

administered by the NSB Department of Planning and Community Services in all eight North Slope 

villages. The researchers found that Iñupiat tend to begin their time allocations with wage labor 

decisions and then divide the remaining time between subsistence and leisure. According to the 

researchers, this finding suggests that Iñupiat have adapted to labor market conditions and is 

consistent with cash dependency for subsistence inputs. Cash for inputs often comes from wages, and, 

once employed, the worker is subject to labor market rigidities that lock him/her into the wageconsumption cycle. However, the policies of local employers allowing for unpaid subsistence leave 

and their acceptance of job turn-over tend to lessen labor market rigidities. Further, Kerkvliet and 

Nebesky found that, since time is allocated among wage labor, subsistence participation and leisure, 

North Slope residents tend to allocate relatively less time to subsistence as they increase their 

employment time and vice versa. However, the discrete change of becoming employed appears to be 

complementary to subsistence participation. An explanation for these findings may rest in 

distinguishing the differing effects of time and income scarcity on subsistence participation. A marginal 

decrease in employment time, in the context of 6 to10 months average annual labor participation, 

lowers time scarcity and raises subsistence hunting effort. On the other hand, a discrete change in 

employment status, reflecting voluntary or involuntary joblessness, represents a major impact that may 

sharply reduce wage income. This reduction, in turn, diminishes the individual’s ability to obtain 

subsistence inputs and to participate in subsistence. In other words, extended underemployment or 

complete job loss may produce income scarcity effects that overwhelm those associated with lower 

time scarcity. 

Over the past three decades the Iñupiat have expressed concerns that regulatory barriers to 

subsistence hunting could significantly reduce the net supply of subsistence resources. Since 1977, the 

bowhead whale harvest of the North Slope Iñupiat and other whaling communities in Alaska has been 

limited by a “subsistence quota” established by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The 

periodic increases in the quota that have occurred over the years have only partially allayed the 

concerns of the Iñupiat regarding their ability to meet their cultural and subsistence needs under the 

externally prescribed harvest regulations for bowhead whales. Incidents such as the vote at the May 

2002 meeting of the IWC that denied the Alaska Natives a bowhead whale quota underscore the 

continuing vulnerability of the quota to the vagaries of international politics.70 Furthermore, whales 

are not the only traditional food species being controlled by outside agencies. As Bodenhorn (2000) 

noted, every element of the traditional Iñupiaq diet is now under external regulations. 

 

70 The denial of the quota by the IWC was widely seen as a response to the opposition of the United States and 

other nations to the attempts by Japan to lift the IWC’s commercial whaling ban (Kizzia 2002). The U.S. State 

Department pursued diplomatic measures to conduct another vote on the bowhead whale quota and were 

successful in getting the quota restored (Gay 2002). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

198 Final

The Iñupiat also perceive offshore oil and gas development as a potential threat to their subsistence 

resource base. The National Research Council (2003) reported that the concerns of the Iñupiat with 

this development fall into three categories. The first is that the Iñupiat do not believe anyone has 

demonstrated the ability to clean up oil spilled in a frozen sea or in broken ice. Along the coast, the 

first concern is that a spill during the migration of the bowhead will injure or kill significant numbers of 

whales. The Iñupiat believe this would be especially critical during the spring migration when both 

spilled oil and whales would be concentrated in leads. The second concern is that a spill would cause 

the IWC to judge the bowhead to be under greater threat than is currently perceived, causing that 

group to curtail or reduce quotas for the striking of whales. The final concern is that the day-to-day 

noise associated with offshore exploration and production would alter the migration routes of the 

bowhead. 

7.1.6 Quality of Life 

As noted above, time constraints have caused some North Slope residents to limit their subsistence 

harvests to the most desired species. For the coastal villages on the North Slope, the single most 

important subsistence resource is the bowhead whale in terms of sustenance benefits, symbolic 

significance and the development and maintenance of social relationships within communities.71 The 

late 1960s and early 1970s saw a resurgence of subsistence whaling in Alaska, especially within some 

North Slope Iñupiat communities (see Chapter 2). By the mid-1970s, the number of documented 

whaling crews had nearly doubled in three major North Slope communities, and the number of 

landed bowheads had increased considerably from the previous decade (Braham, 1995; Braund and 

Moorehead, 1995). Nearly half of Iñupiat men ages 18 and older went whaling in 1977 (Kruse et al., 

1981). The economic growth in the region was a major factor in the resurgence, as the increased 

access to cash allowed more individuals to finance whaling crews (Nelson, 1982). Technological 

changes such as the introduction of snow machines and relaxation of prohibitions on comfort made 

whaling more attractive to young Iñupiat.72 Moreover, active whaling consumed only a few weeks a 

year and could be fit among other activities (Kruse, 1986). 

In addition, revitalized interest in Iñupiat traditions during the 1970s caused greater emphasis on 

whaling as an expression of cultural identity (Nelson, 1982). Because whaling continued to involve a 

large segment of the community, it remained the most visible tie to traditional Iñupiat activities (Kruse, 

1986). Further, growing external pressures against subsistence whaling during the 1970s further 

heightened its prominent role as the symbol of cultural survival and intensified people’s commitment 

to continue the hunt (Nelson, 1982). Worl et al. (1981) found that in spite of the limitations on 

subsistence harvests imposed by caribou and bowhead whale hunting restrictions, the annual round 

of community-wide traditional ceremonies (particularly those associated with the whaling complex 

and traditional celebrations which coincide with Thanksgiving and Christmas) continued and may, in 

fact, have increased participation and strengthened social ties within local communities. The 

researchers reported that Iñupiat extended families appeared to be healthy and function primarily 

through activities associated with the subsistence economy. In addition, cultural values, particularly 

those associated with sharing and cooperative activities and kinship obligations, continued to unify 

extended families and community-wide interrelated families. Although an increasing number of 

nuclear families were living in single-family dwellings, a significant number of houses contained more 

than one family. Worl et al. noted that, contrary to the assumption that nuclear family residency 

 

71 What the bowhead whale is to the coastal villages, the caribou is to the inland villages of the North Slope—a 

keystone of economic and social activity. 

72 In the past there were severe restrictions on comfort, both to make hunters worthy of their prey and to assure 

their readiness (Nelson, 1982). 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 199 

patterns would weaken extended family bonds, indications were that nuclear families living in singlefamily dwellings continued to interact as members of extended families, particularly through 

cooperative subsistence activities. Kinship ties and the cultural values of sharing and cooperation 

continued to integrate the nuclear family into the extended family. 

Worl et al. (1981) also reported that sharing patterns extended to neighboring communities as well. 

For example, when the people of Nuiqsut had an unsuccessful whale hunt, they received shares of 

whale meat from neighboring communities such as Barrow and Kaktovik. Opportunities for 

inter-village travel provided by the NSB and ASRC increased contact among Iñupiat communities and 

served to strengthen the regional identity of the North Slope Iñupiat and reinforce social bonds. 

In terms of the overall quality of life in North Slope communities, most Iñupiat adults found their 

villages to be good places to live in 1977 (Kruse et al., 1981). A majority of Iñupiat adults believed 

that several aspects of village life had improved between 1970 and 1977. A majority stated that there 

were more jobs available in villages in 1977; that transportation to and from villages had improved; 

that local health care, already good in 1970, was better in 1977; and that the quality of local schools 

and of housing had improved. On the other hand, a majority of Iñupiat adults also believed that 

several aspects of village life had worsened between 1970 and 1977. A majority stated that fish and 

game stocks on the North Slope had declined; that the level of drinking, fighting, and drug use among 

villagers had increased;73 that relations between whites and Iñupiat in villages had worsened; that 

food, housing, and clothing costs had risen sharply; and that helping and sharing among villagers, 

while still prevalent in North Slope villages in 1977, was not as widespread as it had been in 1970. 

Iñupiat in 1977 had mixed opinions about whether, on balance, petroleum development had been 

good or bad for their communities, and one-third of Iñupiat adults said they simply did not know 

whether the development had been good or bad for the North Slope. 

There has been no comprehensive quality-of-life study conducted on the North Slope since the 

investigation by Kruse et al. (1981) in 1977. However, information collected in individual 

communities suggests that many of the socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages of living on the 

North Slope have not changed (e.g., see Impact Assessment, Inc., 1990; Smythe and Worl, 1986). For 

example, oil exploration and production activities continue to be a source of social tension and stress 

because these are activities over which the Iñupiat have little effective control, and because there is 

disagreement between and within Iñupiaq communities over the extent to which this development 

represents a threat or an opportunity. As noted by Impact Assessment, Inc. (1990), the degree to 

which the Iñupiat should compromise with the oil industry is a complex issue potentially pitting 

cultural values against economic interests, potentially dividing villages into opposing camps, and 

potentially creating conflicts between institutions in the region. 

On the one hand, the North Slope Iñupiat recognize that their economic future and the modern 

lifestyle they have been accustomed to are closely intertwined with the petroleum industry.74 This 

 

73 Kruse (1984:152-153) states that, contrary to community perceptions, “the traumatic death rate on the North 

Slope increased to an even greater degree during the period before oil development, 1960 to 1971, than it did 

between 1971 and 1977. The rate of increase in a neighboring Iñupiat region, which had had experienced much 

less impact from oil development and a much slower rate of economic change, was substantially higher during 

the late 1970s than it was on the North Slope. Moreover, the absolute level of traumatic death on the North 

Slope in the late 1970s was only slightly higher than in the neighboring Iñupiat region, and it has been 

somewhat higher since the 1960s.” 

74 An economic dependence on the oil and gas industry is shared by the state as a whole. Berardi (1998) states 

that economic development in Alaska, including the availability of public sector funding for transfers, is closely 

tied to oil production and markets. She notes that eighty-five percent of Alaska state revenues are derived from 

one resource – oil, and about one of every three jobs in Alaska is supported by state spending. According to 

Berardi, no other state shows such a dramatic dependence on a single resource as Alaska. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

200 Final

dependence has become especially apparent in recent years with the decline in property tax revenue 

from petroleum installations (see Chapter 4). The resulting decline in tax revenues flowing to the NSB 

led to a sharp curtailment in capital improvement projects and employment opportunities. As 

discussed in Section 7.1.5, however, the Iñupiat are also acutely concerned about the potential 

adverse impact of oil and gas development on the subsistence resources essential to their economic 

and social well-being. 

7.2 Overview of Trends and Issues Affecting Household Economies 

The socioeconomic environments for the North Slope communities through the years show some 

notable trends, characteristics, and issues affecting household economies. The following sections 

provide a summary of such trends and issues for two periods: 1960 to 1971 and 1972 to present. 

7.2.1 The Period from 1960 to 1971 

 The resident population of the North Slope increased from 2,076 in 1960 to 3,075 in 1970 

(about 48 percent). Some of this population increase was a result of movement from interior 

villages to larger communities such as Barrow and Point Hope, a long-term post-contact pattern 

among North Slope residents. Another demographic trend of this period is the out-migration of 

young adults (22-44) to urban areas such as Fairbanks and Anchorage. Generally, older adults 

(>45) remained in the villages. This shift appears to be related to multiple causes, including the 

desire for wage employment and the availability of services (medical, education, etc.) in the larger 

villages and towns. There was an increasing presence of non-Iñupiat in the North Slope 

population during this period, including more permanent residents in the larger communities. 

 Employment opportunities were primarily with government (especially the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs), construction activities associated with development of the DEW line, and the Naval Arctic 

Research Laboratory. Fewer wage jobs existed in smaller villages such as Kaktovik (Barter Island) 

and Wainwright than in larger communities such as Barrow and Pt. Hope. Even in the larger 

villages employment opportunities tended to be intermittent. 

 Between 1959 and 1969, the median household income was below the national and Alaska 

median household income, but there was a steady upward trend. Median incomes for nonIñupiat households were significantly more than for Iñupiat households. Among the Iñupiat, 

transfer payments were an important source of household income. 

 A preferred pattern in household economies was for some males to work for wages to capitalize 

the hunting and fishing activities of other male family members. However, there were insufficient 

employment opportunities in most communities for this preference to be realized. Consequently, 

wage earners worked part time, using cash resources to capitalize their subsistence pursuits. Snow 

machines, fuel, weapons, and ammunition were the most common items purchased. 

 Educational attainment among the North Slope population was low in comparison to the rest of 

Alaska and national averages. In 1960, for example, 17.1 percent of the population had no formal 

education, as compared to 2.4 percent and 3.5 percent for the national and Alaska averages 

respectively; and17.6 percent of North Slope residents had a high school education, whereas the 

national average was 21.2 percent and the Alaska average was 32.3 percent. 

 With the exception of Barrow, most North Slope households did not have piped in water, sewer 

services, or central electric power. “Honey buckets” were the primary means for handling sewage, 

water was hauled to individual homes, generators provided electricity, and oil-burning stoves 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 201 

provided heat. Travel was most often by means of snow machine or dog sled. Some inter-village 

air service existed, but it was prohibitively expensive for many villagers. 

7.2.2 The Period from 1972 to the Present 

 From 1970 to 2000, the North Slope resident population more than doubled. Between 1970 and 

1980, the population increased from 3,075 to 4,199 (36.5 percent); between 1980 and 1990, 

there was a 42.4 percent increase to 5,979, and a 23.5 percent increase occurred from 1990-

2000. The non-Native resident population has steadily increased from 17 percent of the total in 

1970 to 21 percent in 1980. This population increased to 27 percent in 1990 but decreased 

slightly to 26 percent in 2000. In general, non-Natives are under-represented in the less than 25 

age group and over represented in the 30-50 age group. In 2000, the average household size in 

North Slope communities was 3.4 persons, compared with 2.74 persons for Alaska as a whole. In 

general, Iñupiat households have become smaller, with fewer extended family members than in 

the past. However, households continue to exhibit flexibility to accommodate the social 

responsibilities associated with Iñupiat kinship. 

 Females joined the workforce in significant numbers in the post-1970 era, taking positions in the 

public and private sector. In some communities, especially the larger villages, females 

outnumbered males in the workforce. 

 Unemployment in the post-1970 era remained relatively high through the mid-1980s. For 

example, Smythe and Worhl (1986) report that data from 1978, 1980, and 1985 indicate a 38 

percent unemployment rate of which 80 percent was Native. However, the unemployment rate 

declined during the late 1980s; and, in the interval between 1990 and the present, the average 

annual unemployment rate has ranged from a low of 3.5 percent in 1990 to a high of 11.9 

percent in 2002. Unemployment rates were higher in the outlying villages, and some sources 

argue that underemployment and discouraged workers characterized the work force in most 

communities (Circumpolar Research Associates, 1999). 

 Wage employment continued as a means to capitalize and otherwise fund hunting, fishing, and 

gathering activities. Average costs to pursue subsistence activities ranged from $4,000 to more 

than $10,000 per year. Data presented in this report indicate subsistence resources continued to 

be important foods for Native households, and harvesting was an activity practiced by more than 

60 percent of Barrow households and more than 80 percent of households in smaller villages 

such as Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Point Lay. Similarly, the majority of households in North Slope 

communities received subsistence resources from others, suggesting the continued importance of 

the cultural value of sharing, especially with regard to Native foods. Economically, socially, and 

culturally, “subsistence” remained an organizing concept in North Slope lifestyles. 

 Prudhoe Bay oil production facilities generated property tax revenues for the NSB that became an 

important source for funding capital improvement projects and the provision of new services for 

North Slope residents. These services included new schools, libraries, and health facilities. Flush 

toilets and public sewer systems replaced honey buckets in some North Slope communities. 

Travel between villages was most often by air, although in the summer boats continued to be 

used in the coastal villages and snow machines remained a common means of winter travel. 

Satellite and cable systems were common in most North Slope households, and telephones were 

common in larger communities such as Barrow and Point Hope. The Iñupiat Heritage 

Commission provided for enrichment of local culture. The various NSB-sponsored programs and 

services also resulted in many new wage employment opportunities for residents. However, the 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

202 Final

downturn in tax revenues and NSB budgets that began in the late-1990s became a source of 

concern for those who relied on this employment to support their families and lifestyles. 

7.3 Changes in Household Characteristics 

By the mid-1960s, most residents of the North Slope had transitioned from dog sleds and seal nets to 

snow-machine and rifle technology. Whale bone or wood and turf dwellings had been replaced by 

more modern homes, which in some cases included concrete foundations and painted sheetrock 

walls; and, although muktak and ugruk continued to be important foods, vegetables and beef were 

becoming common in family diets. Similarly, Iñupiat households were most likely to be composed of 

primary family members rather than larger extended families. Kinship ties and the cultural values of 

sharing and cooperation continued to integrate the nuclear family into the extended family. Yet, 

households on the North Slope were to continue to be exposed to different demands for adaptation. 

In particular, events of the 1970s, such as ANCSA, the formation of the NSB, and industrial activity at 

Prudhoe Bay, had a dramatic effect on household economies. As a result, 1960 through the early 

1970s and post-1971 to the present are two distinct historical periods in terms of demography, 

employment, and subsistence participation, and characteristics of village households. 

This summary constructs an “ideal type” household for these two historic periods. The ideal type 

construct is an alternative to description of typical households, which is problematic because of the 

variation among North Slope communities. Households in larger communities such as Barrow have 

access to more services and a wider range of employment opportunities. Villages such as Kaktovik and 

Nuiqsut do not yet have the public works infrastructure of Barrow, nor do they have the same housing 

availability. Similarly, the demography of North Slope communities shows differences in variables 

such as total population, the proportion of non-Natives in the total population, and household size. 

Because of these and other demographic and socioeconomic differences noted in previous sections, it 

is difficult to “typify” North Slope households. 

The “ideal type” is a construct used to examine the dimensions of variability within North Slope 

households. The sociologist Max Weber described the “ideal type” construct as follows: “(it) is arrived 

at through the one-sided intensification of one or several aspects and through integration into an 

immanently consistent conceptual representation of a multiplicity of scattered and discrete individual 

phenomena, present here in greater number, there in less, and occasionally not at all, which are in 

congruity with these one-sidedly intensified aspects” (Coser, 1977: 224). That is, the ideal type can be 

used to organize the dimensions of variability without necessarily representing any actual household. 

In using this construct, the effort is to organize some of the important features of household without 

misrepresenting the importance of household variability. 

The “ideal type” household of the period from 1960 to 1971 was likely to contain multiple 

generations, a pattern consistent with traditional household composition. The early 1960s household 

contained parents and several children and often either the grandparents or the married siblings of the 

male head of household. The household children might include a child “offered” and adopted from 

another family with a large number of children. As more housing became available, the grandparents 

or married siblings often moved into their own houses nearby. The houses were typically built by 

family members from scrap wood, and contained two to four rooms, including one or two bedrooms. 

The kitchen was a small area off the main living area. 

Most of the adults and children in the household spoke Iñupiaq, although English was quickly 

replacing Iñupiaq as the language of everyday business and interpersonal communication. Within the 

household, television, radio, and newspapers were the primary means that members received news 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 203 

and information; and, increasingly, winter story telling was giving way to “Little House on the Prairie” 

and other television programming as family entertainment. 

Living in the smaller villages was relatively expensive—four to five times the average household costs 

in other areas of the United States. Consequently, cash income was important to purchase goods and 

pay for the medical and other services that were important for the household. Male householders may 

have been employed in one of the DEW line construction projects or in other wage work at the Arctic 

Research Lab. These jobs generally paid around $6,000 per year (1960 dollars), although the 

household was also likely to receive income from Social Security and other sources of state and 

federal transfer payments. The jobs available included working as a heavy equipment operator and 

various types of light and heavy manual labor. A few permanent jobs existed with the BIA or other 

federal entities operating in local communities, but much of the work was seasonal or temporary. 

Nonetheless, any job, whether it was seasonal, part-time, or permanent, was highly valued. For 

example, household income was required to buy the gas, snow machines, rifles, and boats necessary 

for hunting. Ideally, one or two male household members provided the income for another male to 

hunt nearly full-time and provide the household and other family members with the wild foods that 

were an integral part of Iñupiat life. Increasingly, however, elders expressed concern that the younger 

people in the villages were loosing the values, beliefs, and skills that characterized a good hunter, and 

they questioned the viability of a subsistence lifestyle in the face of the socioeconomic changes that 

were occurring on the North Slope. 

Given the importance of hunting and the necessity of cash income to support it, household males 

balanced the needs for cash with the time available to hunt. This balance was difficult, as the 

availability of cash-earning opportunities and the availability of game sometimes conflicted. Those 

householders who had part-time work were likely to hunt in the spring and summer months when 

game is more readily available. Balancing cash needs with the economic, social, and cultural need for 

subsistence activities structured many of the issues that concerned households. 

The socioeconomic environment for North Slope households changed with events that began in the 

late 1960s, especially the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1967. This discovery accelerated a 

national need to settle land claims between the United States and Alaska Natives, resulting in the 

passage of ANCSA in 1971. One outcome of that Act was the development of one regional 

corporation and several village corporations that became new sources of cash resources and 

employment opportunities for Iñupiat households. Equally, if not more important was the formation 

of the NSB in 1972 and its ability to tax oil development at Prudhoe Bay and related industrial 

facilities. This tax income provided revenue for the NSB that funded new services, schools, and other 

capital improvement projects in the villages. These programs not only led to a marked improvement 

in many aspects of village life but also brought employment and wage earning opportunities to a 

wider range of village households than was available before formation of the NSB. 

Post-1971 households in most North Slope communities had access to new services and facilities, 

new wage employment and educational opportunities, and cash resources that were significantly 

different than in the pre-1971 and especially pre-1960 periods. 

The “ideal type household” for the time period after 1971 was one in which a primary kin group 

(mother, father, children) resided in a modern modular house or, less commonly, in an older wooden 

structure hand-built by previous generations. A neighbor’s household may have included a close 

relative or two of either spouse and some households may have contained both elder parents as well 

as siblings. Larger kin groups were most common in households where housing was limited. Iñupiaq 

and English were both spoken within the household, although in some households only Iñupiaq or 

English was spoken. The adults in the household had more than likely completed high school. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

204 Final

The male household member was likely to be employed full time in the larger villages or part-time in 

the outlying communities. However, some adult males were working in jobs that do not match their 

skills, were unemployed or had dropped out of the workforce altogether. Increasingly, females also 

provided income for the household, especially from employment in clerical and administrative 

positions. There were some private sector employment opportunities for village residents in the 

construction industry or with service industry employers. However, many people worked for the NSB, 

municipal governments or the NSB School District, and these positions were vulnerable to downturns 

in tax revenues and other sources of government funding. 

Household income from wages and other sources was between $50,000 and $60,000, but nonIñupiat neighbors typically had higher incomes. It was also probable that some neighbors had 

household incomes in the range of $15,000 to $40,000. Store bought foods were costly; the prices of 

beef, chicken, and fruit were often two or three times those of the same goods in Anchorage. Utility 

costs also consumed a modest amount of household income: heating, electricity, and water costs 

totaled in the range of $250 to $450 per month depending on the season. Transportation costs also 

were major items in family budgets, especially the costs for air travel to other villages and destinations 

within and outside Alaska. The household engaged in part-time subsistence activities and offered 

financial support for family members in other households who had more time to hunt and fish. The 

cost of ammunition, weapons, boats, gas, nets, and fuel was substantial, but the products from 

subsistence activities and the activities themselves continued to be of fundamental importance to 

householders. 

The household’s residence was mostly likely built after 1970. The residence had four or five rooms 

and a value of around $140,000. The house was heated by oil, although households in Barrow 

benefited from a supply of cheaper natural gas. Although some households had piped water, the 

water used by most households was stored in tanks filled by NSB trucks that retrieved the water from 

a well, lake, or other source. The majority of households had access to a municipal sewage system. 

Many households were likely to have telephones. Television was omnipresent, and watching rented 

videocassettes was a household pastime. Householders attentively listened to the local radio station 

(KBRW) to hear the latest national and local news. Newspapers—often a few days old—from 

Fairbanks and Anchorage were also important information sources. 

The seasonal availability of game and other “county foods” continued to organize the cycle of activity 

in households. However, wage employment increasingly limited the investment of time in the pursuit 

of subsistence activities. In some years, the hunters in a number of households had little food to share 

with neighbors and friends. Individuals had to make decisions about the amount of time they could 

invest in hunting and continue to earn the wages that supported their subsistence activities and 

allowed them meet their sharing obligations. Many jobs offered household hunters extended 

subsistence leave, which eased the burden of making choices about the time to invest in wage work 

and hunting. Nonetheless, the uncertainty of Arctic hunting and fishing activities forced the wage 

working hunter to evaluate the conditions for earning money and harvesting game that provided 

sustenance for the family, resources to share with relatives and neighbors, and a sense of meaningful 

connection with the social and cultural values that reinforced individual, family, and community 

identity. 
Final 205 

8 References 

Ahmaogak, G. Background on the NSB Budget Challenge. Available at www.northslope.org/nsb/BackgroundReorganizationStudy.doc. 2004. 

Ahmaogak, M. Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission: Overview and current concerns. Presented at the 

workshop, Native Whaling in the Western Arctic: Development, Spread, and Responses to 

Changing Environment, March 21-22, 2000, Anchorage. 2000. 

Alaska Consultants, Inc. Detailed Socio-Economic Information, North Slope Borough Traditional 

Communities. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. November 1981. 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Office of the State 

Assessor. Alaska Taxable Reports from 1972 to 2003. 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. Audited financial 

statements provided by Laura Walters, Research & Analysis Section. 2003. 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. Community Database 

Online. Available at www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm. 2005a. 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. RAPIDS: Rural Alaska 

Project Identification and Delivery System. Available at 

www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_RAPIDS.htm . 2005. 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED). North Slope 

Borough: Utilities. Available at 

www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/AEIS/AEISMainFrame.cfm?CensusArea=NorthSlope&Industry

=Utilities&IndexItem=UtilitiesOverview. 2004a. 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. North Slope Borough: 

Tourism. Available at 

www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/AEIS/AEISMainFrame.cfm?CensusArea=NorthSlope&Industry

=Tourism&IndexItem=TourismOverview. 2004b. 

Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. “National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

Impact Mitigation Program”. A Report to the First Session of the 25th Legislature. January 

2005. Available at www.commerce.state.ak.us/dea/grt/pub/2005_NPRA/pdf. 

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Employment data by place of work and by 

place of residence. Personal Communication between Northern Economics and Research and 

Analysis Section, March 2005. 

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Employment data by employer. Personal 

Communication between Northern Economics and Brigitta Windisch-Cole, March 2005. 

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Alaska Economic Trends , January 2005. 

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Construction Cost Survey 2005. Prepared 

for the Alaska Housing and Finance Corporation (AHFC). Available at www.ahfc.state.ak.us. 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Office of Project Management and Permitting. The ANILCA 

Program. Available at www.dnr.state.ak.us/opmp/anilca/more.htm. Accessed June 2005. 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Northwest Alaska Transportation Plan, 

Community Transportation Analysis, An Element of the Alaska Statewide Transportation Plan. 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau. 2004. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

206 Final

Alaska History and Cultural Studies. ANILCA. Available at www.akhistorycourse.org/articles Accessed 

June 2005. 

Alaska Judicial Council. “Resolving Disputes Locally: A Statewide Report and Directory”. April 1999. 

Available at http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/index.htm. Accessed on June 2005. 

Alaska Native Policy Center, Our Choices, Our Future: Analysis of the Status of Alaska Natives Report 

2004. First Alaskans Institute, Anchorage. 2004. 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA). “Get the facts, Oil and Gas is Alaska’s Future”. Information 

material distributed during the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, Make it Monday Forum. 

June 27, 2005. 

Allen, A. A Whaler and Trader in the Arctic. 1978. 

Arctic Coastal Zone Management. “The Calgary Confrontation. U.S. Presbyterian Church Holds 

Consultation in Calgary with Inuit and Arctic Oil Operators.” Arctic Coastal Zone 

Management Newsletter. June 1978. 

Arctic Development Council, North Slope Business Directory. Available at 

http://arcticdevelopment.org/infomation.html. 2003. 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). Available at www.asrc.com. 2003. 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). Annual Report. 1975. 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). Annual Report. 1998. 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). Annual Report. 2000. 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). Annual Report. 2001. 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). Annual Report. 2002. 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). Annual Report. 2003a. 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). ASRC Ugqalugaanich. May 2003b. 

Arctic Slope Virtual Classroom. Available at http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/VirtualClassroom/. 2005. 

Arctic Slope World Services (ASWS). Available at www.arcticworld.com/ home/company.asp. 2003. 

ASCG, Inc. Available at www.ascg.com/about_us_history.html. 2003 

ASRC Aerospace. Available at www.akspace.com/home.htm. 2003. 

ASRC Communications. Available at www.asrcc.com/aboutus.html. 2003. 

ASRC Federal Holding Company. Available at http://www.asrcfederal.com/ASRCfederalHome.htm. 

2005. 

Baker, R. et al. “Long Term Retrospective: Alaska Economy Since Statehood.” Alaska Economic 

Trends. December 1999. 

Barnhardt, R. and B. Harrison. Developing tribal education strategies in indigenous communities. 

Discourse, October. 1993. 

Berardi, G. Natural resource policy, unforgiving geographies, and persistent poverty in Alaska Native 

villages. Natural Resources Journal Vol. 38, No. 1. 1998. 

BeringSea.Com. Communities and Fisheries Website. Available at www.beringsea.com. 2003. 

Bezek-Durst-Seiser. NSB Space Consolidation Project Analysis Report: A Component of the 6-Year 

Capital Improvement Project. 1998. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 207 

Bockstoce, J. Whales, Ice, and Men: The History of Whaling in the Western Arctic. University of 

Washington Press. 1986. 

Bockstoce, J., M. Freeman, W. Laughlin, R. Nelson, M. Orbach, R. Petersen, J. Taylor and R. Worl. 

“Report of the Cultural Anthropology Panel. Aboriginal/Subsistence Whaling (with Special 

Reference to Alaska and Greenland Fisheries.” Reports of the International Whaling 

Commission, Special Issue 4. 1982 

Bodenhorn, B. “The Iñupiat of Alaska.” Endangered Peoples of the Arctic: Struggles to Survive and 

Thrive, Greenwood Press. 2000. 

Bodenhorn, B. “The Animals Come to Me, They Know I Share”: Inupiaq Kinship, Changing Economic 

Relations and Enduring World Views on Alaska’s North Slope. PhD diss., University of 

Cambridge. 1989. 

Bowhead Manufacturing Company (BMC), LLC. Available at www.bmccatalog.com/history/html. 

2003. 

Bowhead Transportation (BT). Available at www.bowhead.com/. 2003. 

Bradner, T. “Arctic Slope Optimistic on Development.” Alaska Journal of Commerce. April 1, 2001. 

Bradner, T. “2001 a Stable, $1 Billion Year for Arctic Slope.” Alaska Journal of Commerce. February 

25, 2002a. 

Bradner, T. “Native American National Bank Takes Aim at Reservations.” Alaska Journal of Commerce. 

November 25, 2002b. 

Bradner, T. “Report Details Native Economic Impact.” Alaska Journal of Commerce. April 1, 2002c. 

Bradner, T. “Development Bank Puts Money into Rural Areas.” Alaska Journal of Commerce. July 7, 

2003a. 

Bradner, T. “Native Corporations: An Epic Story Benefiting Alaska, 2002.” Alaska Journal of 

Commerce. June 9, 2003b. 

Braham, H. “Sex and size composition of bowhead whales landed by Alaska Eskimo whalers.” 

Hunting the Largest Animals: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic, Occasional 

Publication No. 36, Prepared by The Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, 

Edmonton. A. McCartney ed. 1995. 

Braund, S. The Skin Boats of Saint Lawrence Island, Alaska. University of Washington Press. 1988 

Braund, S. and E. Moorehead. “Contemporary Alaska Eskimo bowhead whaling villages.” Hunting the 

Largest Animals: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic, Occasional Publication 

No. 36, The Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta. A. McCartney ed. 1995. 

Brown, C. “The Best Revenge.” Juneau Empire. Available at 

http://juneaualaska.com/between/arcticslope.shtml. 2000. 

Burch, E. “Eskimo Kinsmen: Changing Family Relationships in Northwest Alaska.” The American 

Ethnological Society Monograph Vol. 59. 1975. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Information System. Available at 

www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis. 

Chance, N. Alaska Natives and the Land Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Available at 

www.Alaskool.org. undated. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

208 Final

Chance, N. The Iñupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography of Development. Holt, Rinehart, and 

Winston. 1990. 

Cheatham, J. Vice President, Tikigaq Corporation. Personal communication with Northern Economics, 

Inc. June 6, 2003. 

Chilkat Institute. “Monitoring Methodology and Analysis of North Slope Institutional Response and 

Change.” Technical Report No. 117, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, MMS, 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage. 1985. 

Circumpolar Research Associates. Economic Profile and Census Report, 1998/99, Volume VIII. 

Prepared for the North Slope Borough. 1999. 

Circumpolar Research Associates. 2003 Economic Profile and Census Report, Volume IX. Prepared for 

the North Slope Borough. July 2004. 

Colt, S. Two Views of the New Harpoon: Economic Perspectives on Alaska’s Native Regional 

Corporations. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 

2001. 

Coser, L. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. Waveland Press, Inc. 

1977. 

Denali Commission. FAA Funding Information. Available at www.denali.gov. 2003. 

Dobbyn, P. “Native Claims Settlement Trust Stirs Controversy.” Anchorage Daily News. Feb 15, 2003.

Dupere & Associates. North Slope Borough Reconnaissance Study: An Inventory of the Borough and Its 

Communities. Prepared for the North Slope Borough. 1973. 

Eagle Support Services Corporation. Available at www.eaglesupport.com/main/bowhead.htm. 2003. 

Eben Hopson Memorial Archives. A Short Biography of the Honorable Eben Hopson. Available at 

www.ebenhopson.com/bio/ChurchBio.html. 2004a. 

Eben Hopson Memorial Archives. Hopson Papers & Photographs: Hopson Resigns Gubernatorial 

Candidacy: Comments on Egan's Nine-Point Plan for Rural Alaska, August 15, 1974. Available 

at www.ebenhopson.com/papers/1974/ResignsCandidacy.html. 2004b. 

Eben Hopson Memorial Archives. Hopson Papers & Photographs: Anchorage Chamber of Commerce 

Candidates' Luncheon Speech, July 29, 1974. Available at 

www.ebenhopson.com/papers/1974/ChamberSpeech.html. 2004c. 

Forbes.Com Website. “Alaska’s Alpine Oil Field.” Forbes. Available at 

www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/05/16/rtr974089.html. May 26, 2003. 

Freeman, M. “The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission: Successful co-management under extreme 

conditions.” Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries. University of British Columbia Press. 

E. Pinkerton ed. 1989. 

Freeman, M., Bogoslovskaya, L., Caulfield, R., Egede, I., Krupnik, I. and M. Stevenson. Inuit, Whaling 

and Sustainability. AltaMira Press. 1998. 

Fried, N. “The Trends 100.” Alaska Economic Trends. August 2002. 

Gay, J. “Panel approves whale hunting extension.” Anchorage Daily News, October 15, B1. 2002. 

General Accounting Office. Indian Self-Determination Act: Shortfalls in Indian Contract Support Costs 

Need to Be Addressed. GAO/RCED-99-150, June 1999. 

Glenn, R. Testimony to House Committee on Resources. July 11, 2001. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 209 

Goldsmith, S., Angvik, J., Howe, L., Hill, A. and L. Leask. The Status of Alaska Natives Report 2004, 

Volume I. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 

Anchorage. 2004. 

Harcharek, B. Critique of North Slope Economy: 1965 to the Present (Draft), Northern Economics, 

Inc., Anchorage, AK. Prepared for MMS, Alaska OCS Region. January 2004. 

Hartwell, J. “ASCG Program Works to Give Shareholders Careers.” Alaska Oil & Gas Reporter. 

Available at www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/100301/pro_ascg_careers.shtml. October 3, 

2001. 

Hendryx, E, Executive Administrator, Cully Corporation. Personal communication with Northern 

Economics, Inc. May 20, 2003. 

Hess, B. Taking Control, The North Slope Borough, The Story of Self Determination in the Arctic. NSB 

Public Information Division. 1993. 

Hess, B. The Gift of the Whale. Sasquatch Books. 1999. 

Hippler, A. Barrow and Kotzebue: An Exploratory Comparison of Acculturation and Education in Two 

Large Northwestern Alaska Villages. University of Minnesota. 1969. 

Hopfinger, T. “Ripping it up.” The Anchorage Press, January 16 - 22. Available at 

www.anchoragepress.com/archives/documentac4d.html. 2003. 

Impact Assessment Inc. “Subsistence Resource Harvest Patterns: Kaktovik.” Special Report No. 9, 

Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, MMS, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, 

Anchorage. 1990. 

Information Insights. North Slope Borough Organizational Study. Available at www.northslope.org/nsb/default.html. December 2002. 

Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. “Changes in Well-being of Alaska 

Natives Since ANCSA.” Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions, Institute of Social 

and Economic Research, No. 3. November 1984. 

Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. “Migration and Oil Industry 

Employment of Alaska Natives.” Technical Report 158, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies 

Program, MMS, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage. 1993. 

Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. “Trends in Alaska’s People and 

Economy.” October 2001. 

Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. “Status of Alaska Natives Report”. 

May 2004. Available at http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/statusaknatcandp.pdf. 

International Whaling Commission. Report of the Cultural Anthropology Panel. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, Special Issue No. 4. 1982. 

International Whaling Commission. Aboriginal subsistence whaling catches taken since 1985. 

Available at: http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/table_aboriginal.htm. 2004. 

Jones, A. and D. Weinberg. The Changing Shape of the Nation’s Income Distribution. Prepared by the 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 

Jorgensen, J. Oil Age Eskimos. University of California Press. 1990. 

Jorgensen, J. “Ethnicity, Not Culture? Obfuscating Social Science in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Case.” 

American Indian Culture and Research Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4. 1995. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

210 Final

Kerkvliet, J. and W. Nebesky. “Whaling and wages on Alaska’s North Slope: A time allocation 

approach to natural resource use.” Economic Development and Cultural Change Vol. 45, No. 

3. 1997. 

Kizzia, T. “Inupiat lose bowhead appeal.” Anchorage Daily News, May 24, A1. 2002 

Klausner, S. and E. Foulks. Eskimo Capitalists: Oil, Politics, and Alcohol. Allanheld, Osmun & Co. 

Publishers. 1982. 

Kleinfeld, J., Kruse, J. and R. Travis. “Inupiat participation in the wage economy: Effects of culturally 

adapted jobs.” Arctic Anthropology Vol. 20, No. 1. 1983. 

Knapp, G. and W. Nebesky. “Economic and Demographic Systems Analysis, North Slope Borough.” 

Technical Report Number 100, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, MMS, Alaska 

Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage. 1983. 

Kruse, J. “The Inupiat and development: How do they mix?” United States Arctic Interests, The 1980s 

and 1990s, Springer-Verlag. 1984 

Kruse, J. “Subsistence and the North Slope Inupiat: The effects of energy development.” 

Contemporary Alaskan Native Economics, University Press of America. 1986. 

Kruse, J., Bring-Gould, M., Schneider, W., Gross, J., Knapp G. and G. Sherrod. “A Description of the 

Socioeconomics of the North Slope Borough.” Technical Report No. 85, Alaska OCS 

Socioeconomic Studies Program, MMS, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage. 

1983. 

Kruse, J., Kleinfield, J. and R. Travis. “Energy development and the North Slope Inupiat: Quantitative 

analysis of social and economic change.” Man in the Arctic Monograph No.1. Prepared by the 

Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska. 1981. 

Lee, M. “Baleen Basketry of the North Alaskan Eskimo.” University of Washington Press. 1998. 

Lonner, T. “Subsistence as an economic system in Alaska: Theoretical observations and management 

implications.” Contemporary Alaskan Native Economics, University Press of America. 1986. 

Lowenstein, T. Some Aspects of Sea Ice Subsistence in Point Hope, Alaska. Prepared by the North 

Slope Borough. 1986. 

Luton, H. “Effects of Renewable Resource Harvest Disruptions on Socioeconomic and Sociocultural 

Systems: Wainwright.” Technical Report No. 91, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies 

Program, MMS, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage. 1985. 

McDiarmid, G., Goldsmith, S., Killorin, M., Sharp, S. and C. Hild, Institute of Social and Economic 

Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. Expanding Job Opportunities for Alaska Natives 

(Interim Report). Prepared for the Alaska Federation of Natives. November 1998. 

Melissa Data. Nonprofit Organizations. Available at http://www.melissadata.com/lookups/index.htm. 

2005 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Final Environmental Impact Statement, International Whaling 

Commission’s Deletion of Native Exemption for the Subsistence Harvest of Bowhead Whales. 

Vol. 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

1977. 

National Park Service. Commercial Fishing Environmental Assessment, Glacier Bay National Park and 

Preserve. 1998. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 211 

National Research Council. Environmental Information for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

Decisions in Alaska. The National Academy Press. 1994. 

National Research Council. The Community Development Quota Program in Alaska. The National 

Academy Press. 1999. 

National Research Council. Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s 

North Slope. The National Academies Press. 2003. 

National Science Foundation. Whale hunting societies of the western Arctic: A regional integration. 

Available at www.uark.edu/misc/jcdixon/Historic_Whaling/. 2000. 

Nebesky, William. Personal communication with Northern Economics, September 2002. 

Nelson, R. Hunters of the Northern Ice. University of Chicago Press. 1969. 

Nelson, R. Land Use Values Through Time In the Wainwright Area. Prepared by the North Slope 

Borough. 1982. 

North Slope Borough, North Slope Borough Strategic Economic Plan. March 2004. Available at 

http://www.north-slope.org/nsb/default.htm. 2004. 

North Slope Borough. Building the Borough of the 21st Century, State of the Borough Speech, 

Monday, November 17, 2003. Available at www.northslope.org/nsb/StateOfTheBorough.htm. 2005a. 

North Slope Borough. Organizational Study Recommendation Status (updated July 2003). 

http://www.north-slope.org/nsb/default.htm. 2005b. 

North Slope Borough. North Slope Borough Comprehensive Transportation Study Plan. Transportation 

Updates, July 2004. Available at www.north-slope.org/nsb/default.htm. 2005c. 

North Slope Borough Department of Planning and Community Services. North Slope Borough Census 

of Population and Economy. Final Report. December 1989. 

North Slope Borough Department of Planning and Community Services. North Slope Borough 

1993/94 Economic Profile and Census Report, Volume VII. 1995. 

North Slope Borough Commission on Iñupiat History, Language and Culture. Barrow: Historical 

Overview. Available at www.co.northslope.ak.us/ihlchome/_private/pages/overview/overview.htm. 2004 

North Slope Borough Fire Department. Available at www.north-slope.org/nsb/default.htm. 2004. 

North Slope Borough Police Department. Available at www.north-slope.org/nsb/default.htm. 2004 

North Slope Borough Mayor’s Office. Facing Our Fiscal Future – Together. North Slope Borough 

Q&A. Available at www.co.north-slope.ak.us/nsb/default.htm. 2005. 

North Slope Borough School District. Communities: A Thriving Economy. Available at 

www.nsbsd.org/site/index.cfm/1,70,127,html. 2005a. 

North Slope Borough School District. Communities: Regional Services. Available at 

www.nsbsd.org/site/index.cfm/1,70,128,html. 2005b. 

North Slope Borough School District. Communities: Living Conditions. 

http://www.nsbsd.org/site/index.cfm/1,70,126,html. 2005c. 

North Slope Borough School District. Bilingual / Multicultural Education Department. Available at 

www.nsbsd.org/site/index.cfm/1,93,151,html. 2005d. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

212 Final

North Slope Borough Search and Rescue. Available at www.rposs.com/nsbsar/home.htm. 2004. 

Okakok, G., “Our Barrow correspondent hears new village gets whale.” Tundra Times, October 3. 

1973. 

Okakok, L., Manager, Arctic Education Foundation. Personal communication with Northern 

Economics, Inc., September 3, 2003. 

Olgoonik Corporation. Available at www.olgoonik.com. 2003. 

Ologoonik Corporation. Statement of Qualifications. Available at 

www.olgoonik.com/OES_SOQ_8_22_01.pdf. 

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company. “Beaufort Sea Region Socioeconomic Baseline.” Technical 

Report No. 11, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, MMS, Alaska Outer Continental 

Shelf Region, Anchorage. 1978. 

Pounds, N. “Business Profile: Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative.” Alaska Journal of 

Commerce. September 24, 2001. 

Rainey, F. “The whale hunters of Tigara.” Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural 

History Vol. 41, pt 2. 1941. 

Sampson, R. “Native Languages in Alaska.” Sharing Our Pathways Vol. 7, No. 2. 2002. 

Schwede, L. “Complex Households and Relationships in the Decennial Census and in Ethnographic 

Studies of Six Race/Ethnic Groups.” The Census 2000 Testing and Experimentation Program, 

U.S. Census Bureau. August 27, 2003. 

Sheehan, G. “Whaling surplus, trade, war, and the integration of prehistoric northern and 

northwestern Alaskan economies, A.D. 1200-1826.” Hunting the Largest Animals: Native 

Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic, Occasional Publication No. 36, The Canadian 

Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta. 1995. 

SKW/Eskimos, Inc. Available at www.skweskimos.com/. 2003. 

SKW/Eskimos, Inc. Available at www.skweskimos.com/projects.html and 

www.skweskimos.com/currentprojectlist.htm. 2003. 

Smythe, C. and R. Worl. “Monitoring Methodology and Analysis of North Slope Institutional Response 

and Change 1979-1983.” Technical Report No. 117, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies 

Program, MMS, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage. 1985. 

Spencer, R. “The North Alaskan Eskimo: A study in ecology and society.” Bureau of American 

Ethnology Bulletin Vol. 171. 1959. 

Stevenson, M. Inuit, Whalers and Cultural Persistence. Oxford University Press. 1997. 

Stewardson, J. “An ancient way of life tied to the bowhead whale.” The Standard-Times. Available at 

www.standardtimes.com/daily/10-97/10-28-97/b01lo052.htm. 1997. 

Stricker, J. “8(A) Program Benefits Native Corporations.” Alaska Business Monthly. June 2003. 

Stricker, J. “Arctic Slope Regional Corp. This growing corporation reached two major milestones 

recently.” Alaska Business Monthly. June 2001.

Taliman, V. “Inupiat Eskimos; Life Driven by Oil. Indian Country Today. April 15, 2002. 

The Presbytery of the Yukon. The Presbyterians and the North Slope Borough. Available at 

www.yukonpresbytery.com/YukonPresbytery/Issues/slopeborough.htm. 2005. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 213 

Thompson, L. “The Meaning of Success. Financially, They've Been Losers, but Native Corporations 

Aren't Only About Money.” Juneau Empire. Available at 

www.juneaualaska.com/between/solving.shtml. 1998. 

Thompson, L. “Solving problems: Alcoholism, Suicide, Infant Mortality—Corporations have had a 

Minor Role in Solving Problems that Plague Native Communities.” Available at 

http://juneaualaska.com/between/success.shtml. 2000. 

Tikigaq Corporation. Available at www.tikigaq.com. Accessed June 2003. 

Tuck, B. and L. Huskey. “Economic growth and development strategies for rural Alaska: A time to 

reconsider.” Contemporary Alaskan Native Economics. University Press of America. 1986. 

Underwood, L., Brown, W., LaBelle, J. and Alaska Consultants. Socioeconomic Profile. National 

Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 105 (c) Land Use Study, Study Report 3. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Anchorage. 1978. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Land Management. NPR-A: An Overview. 1996. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. NPRA Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact State. III. 

Description of Affected Environment. Available at 

wwwndo.ak.blm.gov/npra/final/html/3c1.html. August 7, 1998. 

U.S. Census Bureau. Consolidated Federal Funds Reports. 1983 to 2003. 

U.S. Department of Defense. Indian Incentive. Available at www.acq.osd.mil/sadbu/iip/. 2003. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Potential Impacts of Proposed Oil and 

Gas Development on the Arctic Refuge's Coastal Plain: Historical Overview and Issues of 

Concern. Available at http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.html#section1. January 17, 2001. 

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Available at 

https://eweb1.sba.gov/hubzone/internet/general/faqs.cfm#Q10. 2003. 

University of Alaska Fairbanks. Available at www.uaf.edu/univrel/media/FY98/007.html (1998) and 

www.uaf.edu/univrel/media/FY01/019ma.html (2001). Accessed on June 2003. 

VanStone, J. “A successful combination of subsistence and wage economics on the village level.” 

Economic Development and Cultural Change Vol. 8, No. 2. 1960 

VanStone, J. “Commercial whaling in the Arctic Ocean.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly Vol. 49, No. 1. 

1958. 

Wohlforth, C. The Whale and the Supercomputer: On the Northern Front of Climate Change. North 

Point Press. 2004. 

Wolfe, R., Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Subsistence in Alaska: A year 

2000 update. 2000. 

Worl, R. “The North Slope Inupiat whaling complex.” Senri Ethnological Studies Vol. 4. 1980. 

Worl, R. and C. Smythe. “Barrow: A Decade of Modernization.” Technical Report No. 125, Alaska 

OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, MMS, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, 

Anchorage. 1986. 

Worl, R. and P. McMillan. Part I. Kaktovik. In Sociocultural Assessment of Proposed Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge Oil and Gas Exploration, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, 

University of Alaska. 1981. 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

214 Final

Worl, R., Worl, R. and T. Lonner. “Beaufort Sea Sociocultural Systems Update Analysis.” Technical 

Report No. 64, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, MMS, Alaska Outer Continental 

Shelf Region, Anchorage. 1981. 
Final 215 

Appendix A. Projects Funded by Outside Sources in North Slope 

Communities 

The purpose of this appendix is to provide an overview of the capital improvement projects that have 

been funded (or proposed for funding) in North Slope communities. The time frame covered by this 

list is from the late-1980s to 2003. Project information was obtained from the Rural Alaska Project 

Identification and Delivery System (RAPIDS) Database maintained by the Research & Analysis Section 

of the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development—

 http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_RAPIDS.htm 

Table A-1. Anaktuvuk Pass Projects Funded by Outside Sources 

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DCCED 2003 Capital Matching, community projects & improvements $25,114 $26,436 

ANTHC 2002 Water/sewer holding tanks $0 $300,000 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant $173,928 $173,928 

DCCED 2002 Capital Matching, CPI/multi-purpose building $25,000 $26,316 

DCCED 2001 Capital Matching, community hall upgrade $25,000 $26,316 

DCCED 2001 Capital Matching, city maintenance shop upgrade $25,000 $26,316 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant $168,206 $168,206 

DCCED 2000 Leg. Grant, community facilities $55,241 $55,241 

DCCED 2000 Capital Matching, community facilities and equipment $36,809 $38,747 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grants $168,206 $168,206 

DCCED 1999 Capital Matching, community hall upgrade $25,000 $26,316 

DCCED 1999 Capital Matching, bed and breakfast $25,000 $26,316 

FAA 1998 Airport, rehabilitate runway $3,922,000 $4,183,467 

DEC/MGL 1998 Water/Sewer, EPA continued construction service 

connections to homes 

$1,000,000 $2,000,000 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant $179,863 $179,863 

DCCED 1998 Capital Matching, local priority, survey of villages bed 

& breakfast 

$25,000 $26,316 

DEC/MGL 1997 Water/Sewer Phase III $0 $750,000 

HUD/CGP 1997 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, 

structural, interiors & exteriors, water & sewer 

$281,118 $281,118 

DCCED 1996 Capital Matching, bed & breakfast $25,000 $26,316 

DEC/MGL 1996 Piped Water/Sewer Phase II, construct service 

connections to homes 

$375,000 $750,000 

HUD/CGP 1996 Housing Modernization, seal second floor air leaks, 

mechanical, bath, kitchen renovations 

$30,000 $30,000 

DEC/MGL 1995 NSB Water/Sewer System Construction Design, piped 

water and sewer system to service home in the 

community 

$750,000 $750,000 

DCCED 1995 Capital Matching bed & breakfast $25,000 $26,316 

HUD/CGP 1995 Housing Modernization $8,400 $8,400 

DCCED 1994 Combined Senior/Teen Center construction $75,000 $500,000 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

216 Final

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DOT & PF 1994 Chandalar Lake Airport improvements $4,500 $450,000 

DCCED 1994 RDA bed & breakfast design $25,000 $65,7000 

HUD/CGP 1994 Boilers Housing Modernization $150,000 $150,000 

DCCED 1994 Capital Matching bed & breakfast $25,000 $26,316 

DCCED 1993 Leg. Grant, water delivery truck, school water 

improvements 

$150,000 $150,000 

HUD/CGP 1993 Housing Modernization, LBP testing, smoke detectors, 

504 conversions 

$16,625 $16,625 

DCCED 1992 Leg. Grant, road & airport safety projects $381,264 $381,264 

DCCED 1991 Leg. Grant, public safety facility upgrade $75,000 $75,000 

DEC/MGL 1989 December 1987 Septic System Demonstration 

Project, construct septic tank demonstration project, 

consisting of water supply and sewage disposal for 

the community building; completed 

$48,726 $48,726 

DEC/MGL 1989 Septic System Feasibility Study, study the feasibility of 

septic systems in the community 

$1,274 $1,274 

DEC/MGL 1987 Landfill construction $300,000 $300,000 

Table A-2. Atqasuk Projects Funded by Outside Sources 

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DCCED 2003 Capital Matching, community projects & improvements $181,953 $191,530 

DEC/MGL 2002 New infrastructure to individual homes and facilities $100,000 $400,000 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant $120,974 $120.974 

DCCED 2002 Community Center renovation $31,298 $32,946 

FAA 2001 Airport snow removal equipment (grader) $200,000 $213,333 

FAA 2000 Install runway visual guidance for Airport $166,346 $177,436 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant $120,974 $120,974 

DCCED 2000 Local Government Operations $109,000 $109,000 

DCCED 2000 Community Center maintenance & operations $90,000 $90,000 

FAA 1999 Construct airport snow removal equipment storage 

building 

$600,000 $640,000 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant $117,056 $117,056 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant $125,127 $125,127 

DCCED 1997 Capital Matching, Community Center structural repairs 

and improvements/acquisition 

$75,000 $78,947 

HUD/CGP 1997 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, 

structural, interior 

$30,000 $30,000 

HUD/CGP 1996 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, 

structural, interior 

$50,200 $50,200 

HUD/CGP 1995 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, boilers, 

insulation, plumbing, 

$50,200 $50,200 

DCCED 1995 Local Government Assistance $8,172 $8,172 

DCCED 1994 NSB trash collection truck $60,000 $60,000 

HUD/CGP 1994 Housing Modernization, boilers $50,000 $50,000 

DCCED 1993 Leg. Grant, public safety facility upgrade $100,000 $100,00 

DCCED 1993 NPR-A Grant, Local Government Assistance $50,000 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 217

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

HUD/CGP 1993 Housing Modernization, LBP testing, smoke detectors, 

504 conversions 

$25,473 $25,473 

DCCED 1992 Leg. Grant, water tank upgrade $75,000 $75,000 

DCCED 1990 Leg. Grant, purchase and maintenance of a vehicle for 

community center and repairs, maintenance, and 

operations vehicle for the community center 

$112,500 $112,500 

Table A-3. Barrow Projects Funded by Outside Sources 

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

COE 2003 Coast Storm Damage Reduction/Construction $50,000,000 $50,000,000 

DCCED 2002 Capital Matching NSB- Area-wide Hazardous 

Materials Disposal 

$253,961 $362,801 

DCCED 2003 Capital Matching, Browerville Teen Center $109,761 $129,131 

DCCED 2003 Capital Grant 4850 Ilisagvik College- Equipment $20,795 $24,901 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant for communities in the 

Region 

$3,692,925 $3,692,925 

ANTHC 2002 HIS funding water/Sewer holding tanks $0 $2,575,000 

COE 2002 Coast Storm Damage, reduction/pre-construction $2,500,000 $2,500,000 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant $983,569 $983,569 

DCCED 2002 Capital Matching, Goat Harbor upgrade $109,000 $128,236 

COE 2002 Coastal Storm Damage Reduction/Feasibility & 

Design, Feasibility to be completed Feb. 2005; Design 

in March 2007 

$100,000 $100,000 

HUD/AHFC 2001 Construct low rent units in 7 North Slope Villages $183,863 $6,841,782 

HUD 2001 Indian Housing Block Grant for communities in Region $4,506,411 $4,506,411 

DOT & PF 2001 Airport apron expansion and Taxilane extension and 

security fencing 

$277,500 $277,500 

HUD 2001 Indian Housing Block Grant $998,368 $998,368 

Denali 2001 Greist Health Center safety repairs $852,000 $852,000 

DCCED 2001 NPT-A grant NSB-Waterfowl Surveys in NPRA $150,000 $150,000 

DCCED 2001 NPR-A Grant NSB-tracking & analysis of Teshekpuk 

Lake Caribou herd 

$150,000 $150,000 

DCCED 2001 Capital Matching Upgrade Playgrounds & Outdoor City 

Recreational Facilities 

$108,285 $127,394 

DCCED 2001 NPR- A grant NSB- subsistence documentation, 

harvest monitoring 

$100,000 $100,000 

DCCED 2001 Compliance at Roller Rink $10,596 $10,596 

DCCED 2000 NPR- A grant NSB- Village Power Plant & electrical 

distribution/waste, heat distribution 

$10,069,367 $10,069,367 

HUD/AHFC 2000 Construct low rent units in 7 North Slope Villages $183,863 $6,841,782 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant- Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation 

$3,293,624 $3,293624 

DCCED 2000 Mini-Grant, Bowling Alley Feasibility Study $14,5000 $2,116,385 

DCCED 2000 NPR- A grant NSB- Fire Depart. Equipment & Training 

for Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut,, and Wainwright 

$1,114,150 $1,114,150 

DCCED 2000 NPT- A grant Design, Construction & Purchase of 

Retractable Boat Ramp 

$1,000,000 $1,000,000 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

218 Final

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A Grant Design, Construction & Purchase of 

Tractable Boat Ramp 

$1,000,000 $1,000,000 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant $909,947 $909,947 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A Grant, public facilities maintenance & 

operations 

$650,000 $650,000 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A Grant, maintenance, building construction $630,000 $630,000 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A Grant, NSB- Survey & Inventory of Fish 

Resources in Lake & Streams of Eastern NPRA 

$150,000 $150,000 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A Grant, NSB-Waterfowl Survey in NPRA $150,000 $150,000 

DCCED 2000 Capital Matching New Playground/Indoor & Outdoor 

Recreation 

$109,670 $109,670 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant NSB- Harvest Monitoring: Subsistence $100,000 $100,000 

HUD/AHFC 1999 Construct Low Rent units in 7 North Slope Villages $205,292 $6,841,782 

AIDEA 1999 Loan participation with National Bank of Alaska for 

retail building owned by the Ukpeagvik Inupiat 

Corporation and to be leased to the Alaska 

Commercial Company Retail Building 

$5,160,000 $6,450,000 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant- Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation 

$3,293,624 $3,293,624 

HUD 1999 Housing Improvements $972,597 $972,597 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant $972,597 $972,597 

HUD 1999 Housing Improvement $443,808 $443,808 

DCCED 1999 Capital Matching, New playground and indoor/ outdoor 

recreation 

$107,176 $126,089 

DCCED 1999 Leg. Grant NSB- Education, efforts to open the coastal 

plain of Arctic Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas 

exploration and development 

$25,000 $25,000 

HUD/AHFC 1998 Construct low Rent Units in 7 North Slope Village $678,429 $678,429 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant, Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation 

$2,997,418, $2,997,418 

FAA 1998 Wiley Post Will Rogers Memorial Airport: construct 

SRE Building 

$1,500,000 $1,600,000 

DOT & PF 1998 Airport snow removal equipment building $1,205,000 $1,500,000 

DOT & PF 1998 Airport Snow Removal Equipment Building $93,750 $1,500,000 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant $1,038,462 $1,038,462 

DOT & PF 1998 Replace 3 buses $36,100 $800,000 

EED 1998 School Bulk Fuel Systems Upgrade $7,750 $492,500 

FAA 1998 Wiley Post Will Rogers Memorial Airport: Master 

Planning Study 

$375,000 $400,000 

DOT & PF 1998 Airport Master Plan Update $23,438 $375,000 

DCCED 1998 Capital Matching, Local priority =, from 1997 

USDA/RD survey of villages, new Playground/Indoor & 

Outdoor Recreation 

$156,664 $184,311 

DCCED 1998 Capital Matching NSB- Area-Wide Fire Station 

Renovation 

$88,307 $126,153 

DCCED 1997 Capital Matching, new playground/indoor & outdoor 

recreation 

$106,123 $124,851 

DCCED 1997 Compliance for Parks $22,623 $120,164 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 219

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DCCED 1997 Capital Matching, NSB- Thermal Oxidation System $64,423 $92,033 

HUD/CGP 1997 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, 

structural, interiors & exteriors 

$30,000 $30,000 

HUD/AHFC 1996 Construct 20 Low Rent Units $3,523,815 $4,145,327 

HUD/CGP 1996 Electrical, mechanical, structural, interiors & exteriors 

Housing Modernization 

$350,000 $350,000 

DCCED 1996 Capital Matching, new playground indoor/outdoor 

recreation 

$148,034 $174,158 

DCCED 1996 Capital Matching NSB- purchase communications 

equipment/software 

$91,806 $131,151 

DPT & PF 1995 Airport snow blower $52,200 $520,000 

COE 1995 Debris Removal- Eison Lagoon $500,000 $500,000 

HUD/CGP 1995 Housing Modernization, trash facilities, bathroom 

renovations, electric, mechanical, insulation 

$279,007 $279,007 

DCCED 1995 Capital Matching, playgrounds, upgrade city softball 

fields 

$149,613 $176,015 

DCCED 1995 Capital Matching, NSB- Search & Rescue equipment $87,192 $124,560 

DCCED 1995 Compliance for Parks $7,661 $7,661 

DCCED 1995 Construct 20 Low Rent Units $3,262,943, $3,262,943 

HUD/AHFC 1994 Housing Modernization, handicapped ramp, bathroom 

renovations, boilers, security station 

$480,000 $480,000 

DOT & PF 1994 Airport Runway & Taxiway $18,000 $180,000 

DCCED 1994 Capital Matching Upgrade City Softball Fields & 

Playground Equipment 

$143,486 $168,807 

DCCED 1994 Capital Matching NSB- Search & Rescue Equipment $100,076 $142,966 

DCCED 1994 Leg. Grant NSB- Bowhead Whale Census $84,000 $84,000 

DHSS 1994 Hospital Inpatient Facilities Upgrade $25,000 $25,000 

HUD/CGP 1993 Housing Modernization, LBP testing, smoke detectors, 

504 conversions, bathroom renovations, entrances, 

laundry facilities, weatherization 

$1,187,487 $1,187,487 

DCCED 1993 Leg. Grant, NSB- Barrow Cultural Center $200,000 $200,000 

DCCED 1993 NPR-A Grant, local Government assistance $200,000 $200,000 

DOT & PF 1993 Leg. Grant NSB- Coal Project $150,000 $150,000 

DOT & PF 1993 Airport Apron Expansion Phase II $11,100 $111,000 

DHSS 1993 Alcohol Treatment Center upgrades $80,000 $80,000 

DOT & PF 1992 Airport Apron Expansion Phase I $278,245 $2,782,446 

DOT & PF 1992 Airport Rescue & Fire Fighting Building $251,986 $2,519,862 

DCCED 1992 Leg. Grant NSB- Coal Project, Mine Site Development 

Power Plant Design 

$1,200,000 $1,200,000 

DCCED 1987 NPR-A grant NSB- Children/Youth Service Facility $3,000,000 $3,000,000 

Table A-4. Kaktovik Projects Funded by Outside Agencies

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DCCED 2003 Capital Matching, community building upgrade $15,000 $15,790 

DCCED 2003 Capital Matching, Old Cemetery Fencing $10,000 $10,527 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

220 Final

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant $179,613 $179,613 

DCCED 2002 Capital Matching, community building upgrade $15,000 $15,789 

DCCED 2002 Capital Matching, boat dock construction $10,000 $10,000 

BIA 2002 Upgrade community roads $450,000 $450,000 

FAA 2001 Barter Island LRRS Airport: conduct Master Plan $250,000 $266,667 

DCCED 2001 Capital Matching, playground Equipment $25,000 $26,316 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant $173,600 $173,000 

DCCED 2000 Capital Matching, community building upgrade $15,000 $15,000 

DCCED 2000 Capital Matching, boat dock construction $10,000 $10,546 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant $173,600 $173,600 

DCCED 1999 Leg. Grant NSB-Education efforts to open the coastal 

plain of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas 

exploration and development 

$25,000 $25,000 

DCCED 1999 Capital Matching, community building upgrade $15,000 $15,789 

DCCED 1999 Capital Matching, cemetery fencing $10,000 $10,526 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant $186,168 $186,168 

DCCED 1998 Capital Matching, community building upgrade $25,000 $26,316 

FAA 1197 Barter Island LRRS Airport: Mater Plan Study $108,280 $115,499 

HUD/CGP 1997 Housing Modernization: electrical, mechanical, 

structural, interiors 

$57,000 $57,000 

DCCED 1996 Capital Matching, summer campground for children $25,000 $26,316 

HUD/CGP 1995 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical $39,162 $39,162 

DCCED 1995 Capital Matching, community facility improvements $25,000 $26,316 

DCCED 1994 Visitor Center design & construction $75,000 $75,000 

HUD/CGP 1994 Housing Modernization, boilers $70,000 $70,000 

DCCED 1994 Capital Matching, utility vehicle purchase & delivery $25,000 $26,316 

DCCED 1993 Leg. Grant, public safety facility upgrade $100,000 $100,000 

HUD/CGP 1993 Housing Modernization: lead-based paint testing, 4 

access ramps, hardwire smoke detectors in 4 

subdivisions 

$15,200 $15,200 

DCCED 1992 Leg. Grant, water delivery vehicle $155,000 $155,000 

DEC/MGL 1988 Sewage disposal system $500,000 $500,000 

Table A-5. Nuiqsut Capital Improvement Projects Funded by Outside Sources

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DCCED 2003 Capital Matching, community projects & improvements $25,000 $26,316 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant $230,080 $230,080 

FAA 2001 Airport Apron expansion $1,000,000 $1,066,667 

DEC/VSW 2001 Closure Feasibility Study, sewage lagoon $25,000 $100,000 

DCCED 2001 NPR-A grant NSB- natural gas piping distribution $3,800,000 $3,800,000 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant NSB- natural gas conversion $2,200,000 $2,200,000 

FAA 2000 Runway Safety Area construction $2,057,737 $2,194,919 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant NSB- above ground service connection $2,100,000 $2,100,000 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 221

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant NSB- Cultural Center construction $939,800 $939,800 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant Day Care construction, operation and 

maintenance 

$765,000 $765,000 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A Day Care construction, operation & 

maintenance 

$495,400 $495,400 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant City Hall expansion, Kisik Center 

renovation 

$340,000 $340,000 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant $217,284 $217,284 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant, local government operation $200,000 $200,000 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant, graveyard fending $156,000 $156,000 

DCCED 2000 Capital Matching, Youth Center renovation $135,851 $141,949 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant NSB- Police Officer for 3 years $100,000 $100,000 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant $217,284 $217,284 

BIA 1998 5.0 km Colville River Road grand & drain $2,900,000 $2,900,000 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant $233,455 $233,455 

HUD/CGP 1997 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, 

structural, interiors 

$30,000 $30,000 

BIA 1997 4.8 km Colver River Road design $10,000 $10,000 

HUD/CGP 1996 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, 

structural, interiors and exteriors 

$105,000 $105,000 

HUD/CGP 1995 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, & 

plumbing 

$167,000 $167,000 

DCCED 1995 Capital Hatching, ball field & park development $25,000 $26,316 

DCCED 1995 NPR-A grant, local government operations $3,320 $3,320 

HUD/CGP 1994 Housing Modernization, flues, boilers $60,000 $60,000 

DCCED 1994 Leg. Grant, Day Care Center Phase I $60,000 $60,000 

DCCED 1994 Capital Matching, ball field & park development $25,000 $25,000 

DCCED 1994 NPR-A grant, local government operations $4,167 $4,167 

DCCED 1993 NPR-A grant, local government assistance $90,000 $90,000 

DCCED 1993 Leg. Grant, water supply upgrades and equipment $81,900 $81,900 

HUD/CGP 1993 Housing Modernization, lead-based paint testing, 4 

access ramps, retro bath & kitchen in 1, hard wire 

smoke detectors in 4 subdivision 

$22,625 $22,625 

DEC/MGL 1987 Sewage Disposal Lagoon $250,000 $250,000 

Table A-6. Point Hope Capital Project Expenditures Funded by Outside Sources

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DCCED 2003 Capital Matching, community facilities and equipment $25,000 $26,316 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant $384,030 $384,030 

DCCED/M

GL 

2002 NSB Sever System Improvements, housing, plumbing $48,700 $194,500 

DCCED 2002 Capital Matching, Day Care expansion $25,000 $26,317 

HUD 2001 Indian Housing Block Grant $387,665 $387,665 

DCCED 2001 Capital matching, community facilities and equipment $25,000 $26,316 

FAA 2000 Airport Snow Removal Building construction $932,156 $994,300 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

222 Final

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DOT & PF 2000 Airport Snow Removal Equipment Building 

replacement 

$65,000 $650,000 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant $353,514 $353.514 

DCCED 2000 Capital Matching, community facilities and equipment $25,000 $25,000 

HUD 1999 Housing Improvements $371,333 $371,333 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant $371,333 $371,333 

DCCED 1999 Capital Matching, community facilities renovation and 

water and sewer project 

$25,000 $26,316 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant $396,766 $396,766 

DCCED 1998 Mini-Grant, Native Arts and Crafts cooperative start-up $21,000 $148,500 

DCCED 1998 Capital Matching, city equipment $30,175 $31,763 

HUD/CGP 1997 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, 

structural, interiors and exteriors 

$90,000 $90,000 

DCCED 1997 Capital matching, Recreation Center $26,705 $28,111 

HUD/CGP 1996 Housing Modernization, seal air leaks, electrical, 

mechanical, structural interiors & exteriors 

$170,000 $170,000 

DCCED 1996 Capital Matching, Day-Care mini van $26,538 $27,935 

HUD/CGP 1995 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, boilers 

and plumbing 

$272,600 $272,600 

DCCED 1995 Capital Matching, winter storage and maintenance of 

City Garage Building 

$27,838 $29,303 

HUD/CGP 1994 Housing Modernization, boilers $75,020 $75,020 

DCCED 1994 Capital Matching, City Arcade upgrade $15,000 $15,789 

DCCED 1994 Capital matching, City Office upgrade and equipment $13,366 $13,366 

DOT & PF 1993 Airport Road $25,000 $250,000 

DCCED 1993 Leg. Grant Senior Center expansion $150,000 $150,000 

HUD/CGP 1993 Housing Modernization, LBP testing, smoke detectors, 

504 conversions 

$51,385 $51,385 

DOT & PF 1992 Airport runway resurfacing $271,338 $2,713,381 

DOT & PF 1990 Airport lighting $41,138 $411,376 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

Final 223

Table A-7. Point Lay Capital Projects Funded by Outside Sources 

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant $112,298 $112,298 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant $108,439 $108,439 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant $115,842 $115,842 

ANTHC 1997 Landfill Study $0 $125,450 

FAA 1997 Point Lay Dew Station Airport Master Planning Study $108,280 $115,499 

DCCED 1996 Community Facilities Renovation $42,041 $42,041 

HUD/CGP 1995 Housing Modernization $17,931 $17,931 

DCCED 1994 Community Facilities $100,000 $100,000 

HUC/CGP 1994 Housing Modernization $20,000 $20,000 

EED 1994 Cully School Drinking Water $133,100 $158,828 

HUD/CGP 1993 Housing Modernization $33,800 $33,800 

DCCED 1992 Utility Vehicle $75,000 $75,000 

DCCED 1991 Electric project $75,000 $75,000 

Table A-8. Wainwright Capital Projects Funded by Outside Sources 

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

DCCED 2003 Capital Matching, Boat Dock design $25,000 $26,316 

HUD 2002 Indian Housing Block Grant $374,653 $374,653 

ANTH 2002 Water & Sewer Holding tanks $0 $100,000 

ANTH 2002 Plumbing, 4 homes $0 $100,000 

DCCED 2002 Capital Matching, Community Center renovation $25,000 $26,316 

DCCED 2001 NPR-A grant, NSB- local government operations $250,000 $250,000 

DCCED 2001 Capital Matching, TV Cable upgrade $25,000 $26,316 

HUD 2000 Indian Housing Block Grant $355,599 $355,599 

DCCED 2000 NPR-A grant NSB- Community Center & City Hall 

renovation 

$191,283 $191,283 

DCCED 2000 Capital Matching, Robert James Community Center 

furnace 

$25,007 $25,007 

HUD 1999 Indian Housing Block Grant $355,599 $355,599 

DCCED 1999 Capital Matching, Robert James Community Center 

Renovation 

$25,101 $26,422 

DEC/MGL 1998 Piped Water & Sewer, community system household 

plumbing to provide running water, flush toilets, 

showers 

$440,000 $1,230,000 

DEC/VSW 1998 Water/Sewer, purchase pipe for water distribution $40,000 $880,000 

HUD 1998 Indian Housing Block Grant $379,830 $379,830 

DCCED 1998 Capital Matching, Robert James Community Center 

renovation 

$26,891 $28,306 

FAA 1997 Wainwright Airport, rehabilitate runway $1,267,000 $1,351,467 

USDA/RD 1997 Grant administered through the NSB Water & Sewer 

Project/ Above Ground & Interior Service Connections 

2001 

$440,000 $880,000 
North Slope Economy, 1965 to 2005 

224 Final

Agency Year Project Description Agency Cost Total Cost 

HUD/CGP 1997 Housing Modernization, water/sewer system 

renovations 

$570,000 $570,000 

ANTHC 1997 Landfill Study $0 $125,450 

DCCED 1997 Robert James Community Center Bathroom Upgrade $25,000 $26,316 

USDA/RD 1996 Planned Washeteria Improvements funded by NSB $1,375,000 $2,750,000 

HUD/CGP 1996 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, 

structural, interiors & exteriors, water/ sewer 

renovation 

$120,000 $120,000 

DCCED 1996 Capital Matching, Robert James Community Center 

Renovation 

$50,917 $53,597 

DOT & PF 1995 Airport runway and apron resurfacing $473,804 $1,473,804 

HUD/CGP 1995 Housing Modernization, electrical, mechanical, 

boilers, insulation 

$147,600 $147,600 

DCCED 1995 Leg. Grant, Robert James Community Center 

renovation 

$24,992 $31,240 

DCCED 1995 Leg. Grant, Robert James Community Center 

renovation 

$25,000 $26,316 

DCCED 1995 NPR-A grant, local government assistance $6,385 $6,385 

DCCED 1994 Leg. Grant, Search & Rescue equipment $75,000 $75,000 

HUD/CGP 1994 Housing Modernization, boilers, flues $65,010 $65,010 

DCCED 1994 NPR-A grant, local government assistance $4,167 $4,167 

DCCED 1993 NPR-A grant, local government assistance $107,126 $107,126 

DCCED 1993 Leg. Grant, Garbage Truck $65,000 $65,000 

HUD/CGP 1993 Housing Modernization, lead-based paint testing, 

smoke detectors, 504 conversions 

$37,478 $37,478 

DCCED 1990 Leg. Grant, Washeteria relocation $117,971 $117,971 

DCCED 1989 Leg. Grant, furniture, fixtures & equipment, senior 

citizens van & senior center 

$50,000 $50,000 

The Department of the Interior Mission 

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; 

protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that 

their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging 

stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a 

major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people 

who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management 

Service's (MMS) primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources 

located on the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the 

Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian lands, and distribute those 

revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals 

Management Program administers the OCS competitive leasing program and 

oversees the safe and environmentally sound exploration and production of our

Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral resources. The MMS Royalty 

Management Program meets its responsibilities by ensuring the efficient, timely 

and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding 

principles of: (1) being responsive to the public's concerns and interests by 

maintaining a dialogue with all potentially affected parties and (2) carrying out its 

programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the quality of life for all 

Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic development

and environmental protection.