Administrative procedures are intended to increase transparency and help agencies make better decisions. However, these requirements also increase agency workload. Understanding how public agencies satisfy procedural requirements is a critical facet of agency performance. This analysis focuses on the language used in Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) required by the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – specifically, the reuse of similar text within and between assessments. We synthesize theories of institutional isomorphism and bureaucratic coping to understand why text is reused, and consider the tradeoffs of this behavior. Using a national dataset of 1015 EISs published by 22 agencies from 2013 to 2020, we apply local document alignment (LDA) to measure how boilerplate language varies by agency, authors, project type, location, and consulting firm involvement. Latent order logistic and beta regression models applied to the LDA results show that text reuse primarily occurs where there is a clear substantive rationale for boilerplate language or where studies share authors or contract consulting firms. This indicates: (1) that agencies largely do not engage in pro forma compliance efforts; and (2) that while NEPA procedures are oriented around individual projects and decisions, cross-project learning and the narrowness – or breadth – of agencies’ project portfolios shape analytical routines and the relative tradeoffs of boilerplate text in policy analysis. This paper adds to our theoretical understanding of agencies’ coping strategies in response to institutional pressures and makes a methodological contribution by demonstrating the application of text reuse measurement and information extraction methods in public administration research.