Environmental materials published by The Boring Company identify Davey Resource Group as the preparer of an Environmental Impact Assessment and UES as a third-party reviewer. These are consultant documents associated with the project; they are not a government environmental permit or final agency approval.

The documents report limited or no meaningful effects in most categories studied and identify potential benefits in transportation, air quality and greenhouse-gas emissions. Those conclusions depend on the project design, operating assumptions and mitigation measures evaluated by the consultants.

What the Consultants Examined

The assessment addresses noise and vibration, air quality, water resources, geology, land use, historic and cultural resources, wildlife, utilities, transportation, public safety and effects on sensitive populations.

The materials describe planned tunnels roughly 30 to 60 feet below ground and report that most construction activity at the surface would be concentrated at launch, retrieval and station sites.

Water, Noise and Other Findings

For waterways, the assessment cites rock separation between the proposed tunnels and streams or the Cumberland River. It reports no wetlands at the evaluated station or launch sites and characterizes anticipated aquatic-resource effects as none or less than significant.

For noise and vibration, the consultants anticipate temporary effects near surface work sites and lower levels above active tunneling. Whether actual conditions match those projections would depend on final designs, construction methods and field monitoring.

The review also reports limited expected effects on wildlife, historic resources and neighborhood character because most of the proposed system would be underground. These findings apply to the alignments and sites evaluated in the documents.

What the Review Does Not Settle

A consultant assessment does not replace permits, agency consultation, engineering review or compliance monitoring. Route changes, new station sites or revised construction methods could require additional analysis.

The project still must proceed through applicable city, state and federal reviews. Agencies—not the project’s consultants—determine whether required permits and approvals are granted.

Why the Distinction Matters

The documents provide useful technical information about the project team’s environmental assumptions. Readers should distinguish those consultant conclusions from independent government findings and from conditions that can be verified only during construction and operation.

How independent was the assessment?

The consulting firms performed technical work separately from the company’s public-relations claims, but the review was prepared for the project rather than commissioned as a detached academic study. That does not make the findings invalid; it means readers should examine the methods, assumptions and agency responses instead of relying on the word “independent” alone.

The strongest conclusions are those tied to a defined alignment, documented field work and recognized technical standards. Conclusions based on future operating assumptions can change if station locations, construction methods or traffic patterns change.

Update: Permits moved the project into construction

Tennessee announced in February 2026 that TDOT and the Federal Highway Administration approved a lease application and enhanced grading permit for state-owned property and right-of-way. Those government actions were separate from the consultant assessment and provided a later point of evidence about the portion agencies had reviewed.

Approval does not mean impacts are impossible. Permits typically establish conditions and responsibilities intended to manage anticipated effects. Construction monitoring, incident reporting and compliance records are needed to determine whether those controls work as intended.

What to monitor during tunneling

Useful environmental evidence includes groundwater observations, vibration and settlement measurements, noise complaints, handling of excavated rock, erosion controls and any spills or permit violations. Reporting should distinguish a measured effect from a complaint, and a temporary construction impact from a lasting change.

If the alignment, launch sites or station footprint expands beyond what the consultants evaluated, readers should look for supplemental analysis. The scope of a conclusion is limited to the work and locations actually studied.

SOURCES