Questa Hydrogen Project: Facts & Concerns  

The proposed Questa Hydrogen Energy Storage Project includes a solar array of approximately 300 acres, hydrogen production equipment, compressors, storage vessels, fuel cells, a substation, and related transmission infrastructure.

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative is pursuing the project with federal funding support and project partners. The proposed location is near the Village of Questa, homes, roads, and Alta Vista Elementary School.

The project has received major federal funding support, but residents continue to have questions about the construction timeline, environmental studies, emergency planning, financial obligations, and what happens if only part of the project is completed.

View Project Layout

USDA Environmental Assessment

USDA FONSI

KCEC commissioned BakerRisk to evaluate possible hydrogen-related accidents involving fire, explosion, thermal radiation, blast pressure, building damage, and human injury.

The analysis models several possible consequences, including:

• Hydrogen fires and thermal radiation

• Blast overpressure and blast impulse

• Damage to residential and other structures

• Human hearing and lung impacts

• Potential effects extending beyond the project boundary

BakerRisk concluded that additional safety work is needed, including a site fire-protection plan, emergency-response planning, blast mitigation, fire-and-gas detection, and action-plan development.

On June 25, 2026, KCEC announced that portions of its electrical system were being placed into non-reclose operation because of extreme wildfire conditions. This means electrical lines may remain off after a fault until they can be inspected, reducing the risk of repeated electrical ignition.

That announcement raises an important question: if current conditions require heightened precautions to prevent electrical wildfire ignition, how will those same drought and wildfire conditions be addressed for a facility involving high-pressure hydrogen production, compression, storage, and electrical infrastructure?

Read BakerRisk Analysis

Read KCEC June 25 Fire Notice 

On June 24th 2026, James Hampton, Taos County Fire Marshal, responded to our questions about fire-code oversight and emergency planning for the proposed hydrogen facility.

He explained that because the project is located within the Village of Questa, the Questa Fire Department is the authority having jurisdiction. This means Questa Fire—not Taos County—would be responsible for establishing local fire-code requirements, reviewing response plans, setting emergency conditions, and addressing evacuation planning. Taos County would serve only in a supporting or mutual-aid role.

This is especially important because the February 27, 2026 BakerRisk presentation says that several major safety steps still needed to be completed or further evaluated, including:

• A site-specific fire-protection plan

• The amount and source of fire water needed for worst-case events

• Emergency-response planning

• Blast mitigation

• Fire-and-gas detection

• Action-plan development

On June 24th 2026 we contacted Questa Fire/EMS asking whether these plans have been completed, reviewed, or approved, and whether local responders have the staffing, equipment, training, water supply, and mutual-aid agreements necessary to respond to a hydrogen emergency.

As of June 26, 2026, no response has been received. 

That does not prove that no planning has occurred. It means the public has not yet been shown that the required planning exists or that the local department expected to carry the responsibility is prepared.

What remains unanswered

• Has Questa Fire reviewed the BakerRisk analysis?

• Has a hydrogen-specific fire-protection plan been completed?

• Has the required fire-water supply been identified and secured?

• Is there a public evacuation plan for nearby homes, roads, and Alta Vista Elementary School?

• Are local responders trained and equipped for high-pressure hydrogen fires and explosions?

• What role would Taos County, neighboring departments, and state responders play?

• Has the project received final local fire-code approval?

• Why is the project moving forward before these safety requirements have been completed, reviewed, and made public? 

The New Mexico Department of Wildlife reviewed project information through the New Mexico Environmental Review Tool and issued recommendations for the proposed project area in November 2025.

The Department confirmed to us on June 16th, 2026 that it had not received the USDA Environmental Assessment or the completed biological survey reports and could not confirm whether the recommended surveys were actually performed.

The recommendations do not identify only one species or one small concern. They cover several different parts of the proposed development:

Prairie dogs and burrowing owls

The project area may contain prairie-dog habitat, which can also support burrowing owls. The recommendations call for surveys before disturbance and protections if active colonies, burrows, or owls are found.

Migratory birds and raptors

The recommendations address federal protections for migratory birds and call for active-nest surveys, seasonal construction precautions, and appropriate buffers around occupied nests.

Wetlands and riparian habitat

The Department’s review states that the project occurs within or near riparian habitat and may involve wetlands. It recommends avoiding disturbance to riparian vegetation and sensitive drainage areas.

The approximately 300-acre solar array

The Department gave specific recommendations for how solar construction should occur, including:

• Minimize grading and blading

• Avoid “drive and crush,” “disc and roll,” and similar clearing methods

• Retain approximately 60–70 percent of native vegetation where feasible

• Preserve existing soil and root systems

• Use wildlife-permeable fencing

• Leave undisturbed habitat patches

• Include wildlife corridors at least 300 feet wide

• Avoid sensitive washes, road hazards, and habitat fragmentation

These are substantial recommendations for the design and construction of the solar array. The public has not yet been shown whether KCEC accepted them, rejected them, or incorporated them into the final site plan.

The central question:

The question is not simply whether someone checked a box labeled “biological resources.”

It is whether the right surveys were completed:

• In the right places

• At the right time of year

• Before construction or site disturbance

• Across the full footprint, including roads, power lines, pipelines, fencing, staging areas, drainage areas, and the western forested edge

• And whether the findings were actually used to change the project design

Read NMDOW Recommendations 

Rare Plants, Wetlands, and Agency Review

On June 17, 2026, New Mexico State Botanist Erika Rowe responded to questions about endangered plants at the proposed project site. She said that her office had not previously been contacted for review or consultation by KCEC, USDA, the Village of Questa, SWCA, ENTrust, or another project representative. She had not received a project footprint or rare-plant survey for review.

After examining the available project maps, Erika noted that much of the mapped area appears previously disturbed, which may reduce the likelihood of rare plants in those portions of the site. However, she identified a specific concern involving the state-endangered plant Cymopterus spellenbergii. Known populations occur near the small forested area along the western side of the project.

Erika also explained that:

• State endangered-plant protections can apply on private land.

• An incidental-take permit may be required if a state-listed plant would be harmed.

• A federally funded project would generally be expected to include an appropriate biological survey.

• Private project proponents may not always realize that state endangered-plant requirements apply.

Erika brought Sami Naibauer, Botanist/Ecologist with the BLM Taos Field Office, into the discussion because of the adjacent BLM land and known plant populations.

On June 29, 2026, Sami confirmed that Cymopterus spellenbergii occurs on adjacent BLM land. She also reported that numerous pinyon-jay colonies are present in the surrounding area.

Without a GIS shapefile showing the complete project footprint and Area of Potential Effect, Sami said she could not determine what the environmental impacts may be. We are now requesting that shapefile so she can assess the project’s proximity to known plant populations and surrounding habitat. Following her recommendation, we are also contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding possible impacts to pinyon jays.

Earlier recommendations from the New Mexico Department of Wildlife also identified concerns involving an Important Plant Area, riparian habitat, and possible wetlands.

What Remains Unanswered

• Was a complete rare-plant survey performed?

• Was the survey conducted during the appropriate season?

• Did it cover the western forested area and the entire final disturbance footprint?

• Have the State Botanist and BLM Botanist been given the survey and full project shapefile for review?

• Were possible impacts to pinyon jays evaluated in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

• Has a formal wetlands delineation been completed?

• Has the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined whether federal wetlands authorization is required?

• Were agency recommendations incorporated into the project design before construction plans were finalized?

Water is one of the most serious unresolved questions surrounding the proposed project.

The USDA environmental document identifies a well associated with the Chevron tailings facility as the proposed water source. KCEC has said that the well appears to draw from a deeper groundwater source than many nearby domestic wells and acequias.

On June 16, 2026, KCEC released what it called its “Initial Water Study Findings.” The announcement said that a Phase One review examined regional geology, well records, available groundwater information, and subsurface conditions around Questa.

However, KCEC did not release the full groundwater study, its supporting data, pumping-test results, or an independent technical review. What the public received was KCEC’s summary of its initial interpretation.

KCEC emphasized that the proposed project well “appears” to draw from a deeper groundwater source. But a deeper well does not, by itself, establish that groundwater systems are completely separate or that long-term pumping could not affect shallower groundwater, domestic wells, community wells, springs, wetlands, acequias, or future water supplies.

The language used in the announcement—including “appears,” “indicates,” and “Phase One”—also makes clear that this was an initial conclusion rather than a final demonstration of no impact.

Information Still Needed

The public has not yet received:

• The complete Phase One report and supporting groundwater data

• The exact identity, depth, construction, and screened interval of the proposed well

• Pumping-test results and long-term drawdown modeling

• Projected annual, peak, startup, cooling, maintenance, emergency, and fire-response water demand

• The water-right documents authorizing the proposed industrial use

• An evaluation of effects on nearby domestic and community wells, springs, wetlands, acequias, and surface water

• A drought-adjusted analysis of long-term water availability

• A public monitoring plan with clear thresholds for reducing or stopping pumping

• A plan identifying who would repair, replace, or compensate affected wells

• Independent review by a hydrogeologist who is not working for the project

Without these records, the public cannot independently evaluate KCEC’s conclusion that the proposed water use will not harm surrounding water resources.

Current Drought Conditions Matter

This project is not being considered under ordinary water conditions.

On May 20, 2026, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued Executive Order 2026-026, declaring drought and severe fire conditions across New Mexico. The Governor’s Office reported historic-low snowpack, record-high spring temperatures, record-low runoff, below-average river flows, and 366 wildfires during the first four months of 2026—twice the number recorded during the same period in 2025.

New Mexico’s long-range water planning also anticipates that climate change could reduce available water supplies by approximately 25 percent and create shortages of up to 750,000 acre-feet.

A project may have legal access to water and still raise serious questions about whether that use is wise, sustainable, and adequately protected during prolonged drought.

These conditions are not background information. They are the conditions under which the project’s proposed groundwater use must be evaluated.

Local History Matters

Questa residents have lived through decades of uncertainty involving mining, contamination, groundwater, cleanup, and questions about who controls local water.

Because of that history, the community should not be expected to accept a press release or selected summary as proof that there will be no impact. The complete study and its supporting records should be available for independent public review.

POD 18 Is Still Being Used for Superfund Dust Control

On June 26, 2026, EPA confirmed that POD 18 is still being used for dust control at the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site.

This matters because POD 18 has also been identified as a possible water source for the proposed hydrogen facility. Chevron’s 2018 water-right application described the well as an integral part of reclamation and closure activities, including dust control and roadway maintenance.

The community has not yet been shown whether POD 18 can reliably continue serving that active reclamation purpose while also supplying water to the hydrogen project—especially during severe drought or periods of increased dust-control demand.

Several basic questions remain:

• How much water is currently required for Superfund dust control?

• How much water would the hydrogen facility require?

• Can the well reliably support both uses during drought?

• Would project use reduce the amount available for reclamation?

• Has EPA evaluated the proposed dual use?

• Has the Office of the State Engineer approved the proposed purpose of use?

• What happens if dust-control needs increase during dry or windy conditions?

A well that remains part of an active Superfund dust-control program should not be treated as an unlimited new industrial water source without a complete public analysis.

The Central Water Question

KCEC has released its interpretation of the first phase of its own project study.

The community is still waiting to see the complete study, supporting data, pumping analysis, legal water authority, drought analysis, independent review, and protections that would apply if nearby water resources are affected.

The proposed hydrogen facility and solar array are located on property connected to the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site. State and federal regulators have said they do not expect construction in the leased area to interfere with the existing cleanup. However, the public has not yet been shown the documents or technical analysis supporting that conclusion.

What NMED said

On June 25, 2026, I spoke with Matthew Bogar, Chevron Questa Mine Oversight Manager with the New Mexico Environment Department.

He said the proposed construction area lies within the larger Chevron property but was not used as a tailings-disposal area. He described it as natural or previously undisturbed land and said no separate Superfund review was required.

I asked him directly whether the proposed project area was toxic. He said no.

He also said he did not believe construction would interfere with the cleanup and that Chevron would remain responsible if contamination were encountered or caused by construction.

What EPA confirmed

On June 19, 2026, community member and UNM law student Honorio Justin Rael sent EPA detailed questions about POD 18, the Chevron–KCEC lease, and protection of the Superfund remedy.

On June 26, Elizabeth Pletan, an attorney with EPA Region 6’s Superfund Branch, provided EPA’s written responses.

EPA confirmed that:

• POD 18 is within the Superfund Site boundaries

• POD 18 is still being used for dust control

• EPA reviewed the Chevron–KCEC lease

• Chevron remains responsible for the Superfund remedy

• EPA expects construction in the leased area not to affect the remedy

• EPA will continue overseeing the cleanup and monitoring whether the remedy remains protective

EPA stated:

“EPA has determined that construction in the leased area should not impact the remedy. EPA will continue to oversee the response actions and monitor the protectiveness of the remedy.”

Why POD 18 matters

Chevron’s 2018 water-right application described POD 18 as being used for dust control and roadway maintenance connected to reclamation and closure of the tailings facility.

POD 18 has also been identified as a possible water source for the proposed hydrogen facility.

The public has not yet been shown whether the well can reliably serve both purposes—Superfund dust control and hydrogen production—especially during severe drought.

Questions about the Chevron–KCEC lease

EPA confirmed that it reviewed the lease between Chevron and KCEC. EPA also said neither company has indicated that KCEC will perform Superfund response work.

However, the lease reportedly requires KCEC to address environmental damage caused by its own activities.

This leaves important questions about where KCEC’s responsibility ends and Chevron’s responsibility begins if construction encounters contamination, damages cleanup infrastructure, changes drainage, or interferes with monitoring and access.

What EPA has not yet provided

EPA has not yet identified:

• The reports, maps, or technical analysis supporting its determination

• Whether a formal written compatibility review exists

• Whether its review covered both the hydrogen facility and the full solar-array footprint

• Whether roads, grading, trenching, fencing, utilities, drainage, and transmission infrastructure were evaluated

• Whether the project was compared with the most recent Superfund Five-Year Review

Follow-up questions have been sent requesting this information.

Independent soil testing is underway

On June 26, 2026, local geologist Scott Sutton collected community-initiated soil samples from areas surrounding the tailings site.

The samples are being prepared for independent laboratory testing for:

• Molybdenum

• Uranium

• Manganese

• Sulfate

• Fluoride

The testing is intended to provide an initial check for mine-related contamination in areas described as natural or undisturbed. Results are not yet available.

This initial sampling does not represent the entire solar-array footprint and is not a complete regulatory site investigation. Any findings will need to be interpreted using the sampling locations, laboratory methods, detection limits, quality controls, and appropriate soil-screening standards.

Results and supporting information will be posted when available.

Why testing still matters

The term “undisturbed” describes how the land was previously used. It does not necessarily establish that soil across the full solar footprint has been tested and proven uncontaminated.

Historic tailings were exposed for years to wind, rain, snowmelt, runoff, and seepage. Nearby residents have also reported longstanding concerns about dust from the tailings area.

EPA’s conclusion that construction should not interfere with the remedy is important, but the community is still seeking the evidence behind that conclusion and independent information about existing soil conditions.

Key questions still awaiting answers

• What records did EPA rely upon when reaching its determination?

• Did EPA review the hydrogen facility and the full solar-array footprint?

• Can POD 18 support both dust control and hydrogen production?

• What happens if construction encounters or spreads contamination?

• What authority could EPA use to pause or modify construction if it interferes with the remedy?

• Has the entire solar-array footprint ever been systematically tested for contamination?

Following the June 3, 2026 community meeting at Yoga Sala, KCEC sent attendees a written explanation of the federal tax-credit and funding deadlines connected to the proposed project.

KCEC confirmed that the solar array faces the earliest deadline.

Solar tax-credit deadline

According to KCEC, the solar array can qualify for the federal Investment Tax Credit through either of two pathways:

1. Show a “substantial beginning of construction” by July 4, 2026, or

2. Place the solar array in service by December 31, 2027

Only one pathway must be met.

KCEC did not explain what work qualifies as a “substantial beginning of construction,” how much must be spent or completed, who would claim the tax credit, or what happens if the solar array begins but the hydrogen facility is later delayed or abandoned.

Hydrogen and fuel-cell deadlines

KCEC stated that:

• Hydrogen construction must begin by December 31, 2027

• The hydrogen facility must be operating by December 31, 2028

• The ten-year hydrogen Production Tax Credit begins when the first kilogram of qualifying hydrogen is produced

• Fuel-cell construction must begin by December 31, 2032

These deadlines are considerably later than the July 4, 2026 solar deadline.

USDA New ERA funding

KCEC has received an approximately $231 million award through USDA’s New ERA program for a larger package of renewable-energy projects involving hydrogen, solar generation, and battery storage.

KCEC told residents that the New ERA funds must be fully spent by December 31, 2031.

However, the email did not explain:

• Whether beginning the Questa solar array unlocks, protects, or triggers any portion of the USDA award

• How much of the $231 million is allocated specifically to the Questa solar array

• How much is allocated to hydrogen, batteries, or projects in other locations

• When KCEC may begin drawing federal funds

• What milestones must be met before reimbursement

• Whether funds must be repaid if the hydrogen facility is not completed

• What happens to the solar array if the hydrogen project does not proceed

Village Council Removes Solar Array from Capital Plan

At its June 2026 meeting, the Village of Questa Council considered its Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan for 2028–2032.

The plan included a proposed “Village of Questa Solar Array.”

During the discussion, a council member asked whether the Village had a contract with Kit Carson Electric Cooperative concerning the solar array. The answer given was no.

Council members raised several concerns:

• The Village had no contract establishing its relationship with KCEC

• The Council had not been clearly shown what the Village would gain

• Potential financial and environmental liabilities had not been explained

• The benefits and drawbacks of the arrangement had not been fully discussed

• Leaving the project in the ICIP might allow it to advance without additional Council or public discussion

• The Village could become dependent on KCEC as the only practical purchaser of the electricity, leaving KCEC with significant control over the price

A motion was made to remove the Village of Questa Solar Array from the ICIP. The motion passed 3–1.

The Council then approved the amended ICIP without the solar-array project.

This was not a formal land-use denial preventing KCEC from independently pursuing a solar project. However, it was a clear decision by a majority of the Village Council not to include the proposed Village solar array in the Village’s official capital improvement plan without a contract, defined benefits, understood liabilities, and further discussion.

The Village was being asked to include a multimillion-dollar solar project in its capital plan without a contract explaining what the Village would receive or what responsibilities it would assume.

Following the vote, a council member formally requested that KCEC return for a public presentation with the Village attorney present to explain project ownership, legality, tax credits, costs, benefits, and potential taxpayer liability. This further shows that major terms had not been clearly presented to the Council. 

The Chevron–KCEC Lease and Environmental Responsibility

EPA confirmed on June 26, 2026 that it reviewed the lease between Chevron Mining and KCEC.

EPA also stated that neither Chevron nor KCEC has told the agency that KCEC intends to perform response work at the Superfund Site.

However, the lease reportedly includes provisions requiring KCEC to restore, remediate, repair, or address environmental conditions resulting from its own project activities.

This creates an important distinction that has not yet been fully explained:

• Chevron remains legally responsible for the Superfund remedy.

• KCEC may be responsible under the lease for environmental damage caused by its construction or operations.

• EPA has not yet explained where KCEC’s restoration responsibilities end and Chevron’s Superfund responsibilities begin.

The public deserves to know whether project construction could create new cleanup costs, who would initially pay them, and whether any financial or environmental liability could later fall on KCEC members or the Village of Questa.

What the timeline shows

The dates create clear pressure to move quickly:

• July 4, 2026: Solar “beginning of construction” tax-credit pathway

• December 31, 2027: Alternate solar placed-in-service deadline

• December 31, 2027: Hydrogen construction deadline

• December 31, 2028: Expected hydrogen operational deadline

• December 31, 2031: USDA New ERA expenditure deadline

• December 31, 2032: Fuel-cell construction deadline

The solar tax-credit deadline may explain the urgency. It does not answer whether construction should proceed after a 3–1 Village Council vote against the solar proposal, or before safety, water, wildlife, emergency-response, and financial questions are resolved.

A FEDERAL DEADLINE DOES NOT ERASE A COMMUNITY VOTE.

Despite months of public discussion, agency outreach, document review, and direct questions to KCEC, several major issues remain unresolved.

Community consent

• Will KCEC continue pursuing the project despite approximately 1,400 petition signatures and the Village Council’s 3–1 vote to remove the proposed Village solar array from the ICIP?

• Will KCEC hold a member vote or another formal process to measure community consent?

Safety and emergency response

• Has a final fire-protection and emergency-response plan been completed and approved?

• Where are Alta Vista Elementary School, nearby homes, and evacuation routes in relation to BakerRisk’s modeled impact contours?

Water

• When will KCEC release the full Phase One report, pumping data, drawdown analysis, and water-right documentation?

• Can POD 18 serve both Superfund dust control and hydrogen production during drought?

Wildlife, wetlands, and rare plants

• Were complete biological and rare-plant surveys performed across the full disturbance footprint at the proper time of year?

• Were state and federal agency recommendations incorporated into the final design?

Superfund and soil

• What documents did EPA rely upon in concluding that construction should not affect the remedy?

• Has the full solar-array footprint been independently tested for contamination?

County permits and construction

• What permits and approvals have actually been issued?

• Has any site work begun before all required approvals were complete?

Funding, ownership, and liability

• What must KCEC do by July 4, 2026 to preserve the solar tax credit?

• Who receives the financial benefit, and who carries the liability if the hydrogen facility is delayed, abandoned, or transferred to the Village?

Accountability

KCEC describes itself as a member-owned cooperative. The central question is whether a cooperative should move forward with a major industrial project while substantial community opposition, legal questions, and safety concerns remain unresolved.

A cooperative should not treat the community it serves as an obstacle to overcome.

Residents have contacted agencies, reviewed project documents, gathered approximately 1,400 petition signatures, and brought concerns before local officials.

The Village Council also voted 3–1 in June to remove the proposed Village of Questa Solar Array from its 2028–2032 Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan.

With construction deadlines approaching, the community is now seeking urgent legal and technical review to determine whether there is a basis to:

• Pause grading, trenching, fencing, vegetation removal, or other construction

• Require release or completion of environmental and biological studies

• Review public notice, permitting, zoning, and environmental compliance

• Obtain federal funding agreements, contracts, and project milestones

• Clarify ownership, environmental liability, and decommissioning responsibility

• Seek an administrative pause, injunction, or other emergency relief if legally supported

Public-records action is underway

On June 18, 2026, community member and UNM law student Honorio Justin Rael submitted an Inspection of Public Records Act request to Taos County.

The request seeks records concerning:

• Zoning, building, grading, utility, fencing, and development permits

• Site plans, engineering drawings, surveys, and maps

• County planning and land-use determinations

• Communications among Taos County, KCEC, the Village, Chevron, USDA, and project contractors

• Environmental-review and NEPA records

• Inspections, complaints, enforcement actions, and stop-work orders

• Whether construction began before all required approvals were issued

EPA has also been asked to identify the documents supporting its conclusion that construction in the Chevron–KCEC leased area should not affect the Superfund remedy.

Records received through these requests will be reviewed and added to this site when available.

Help Fund the Community Response

Residents have already given an enormous amount of time, research, and energy to understanding this project and bringing unanswered questions into the public record. We have now reached the point where community concern must be backed by legal, technical, and public-outreach support.

Attorney Guy Decherie is now assisting with the case. Funds raised will help cover:

• Legal consultation, research, and possible action

• Independent soil sampling and laboratory costs

• Technical and environmental review

• Newspaper advertisements and public notices

• Flyers, printing, signs, and community outreach

• Public-records costs and other expenses connected to the effort

This work is being led by local residents who believe decisions of this scale should not move forward without complete information, meaningful public participation, and clear protections for our water, land, health, and community.

Every contribution—large or small—helps us continue asking the necessary questions and pursuing real accountability.

Scan the QR code at the bottom of the page to donate to the Protect Questa fundraiser.

HOW RESIDENTS CAN HELP

• Attend public meetings --especially the village council meetings in Questa and request that concerns be entered into the record

• Share relevant documents, emails, recordings, maps, photographs, or meeting notes

• Help research permits and public records

• Document site clearing, grading, fencing, equipment delivery, or other activity

• Support independent soil, water, wildlife, and safety review

• Contribute toward legal and technical review

• Ask elected officials to support an immediate administrative pause

Sign the Petition

A countywide petition is asking local governments and KCEC to slow the proposed hydrogen project until the public has received fuller environmental review, broader water analysis, meaningful public input, and clear information about the risks and economic benefits.

Sign the Taos County Hydrogen Petition 

Join the community of Water Protectors On Facebook

Can you offer legal expertise, technical knowledge, documents, research assistance, financial support, or volunteer time?

Use the form below to connect with the community effort.