If you have ever opened up your Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and thought, “This isn’t how we actually do things here…” you are not alone. How a plan is structured is one of the most straightforward choices in emergency planning, yet it is often the most overlooked. And in New England, where every municipality across each state functions a little differently, structure matters more than people realize.

Whether you are an emergency manager, fire chief, or the unofficial planner who somehow became the keeper of the EOP, this blog walks through the most common formats as well as what FEMA’s CPG 101 v3 recommends when choosing the right one.

Why Structure Matters More Than You Think

There is no mandatory EOP format to implement NIMS. States and oversight bodies may prescribe certain planning requirements or templates, but FEMA leaves EOP structure flexible for a reason. As CPG 101 v3 states, planning teams should evaluate which format fits their jurisdiction, considering operational needs, style of government, risk assessment results, and jurisdiction size. In other words, form should follow function.

A quick way to decide which structure makes sense is to look at how your EOC is organized. If your EOC sits in sections such as transportation, public safety, or energy, a functional format may be the right choice. If your EOC operates by department such as fire, police, public works, or public health, a department-focused format might feel more natural. 

Matching your EOP to your EOC is not mandatory. Some communities intentionally diverge. But if the structures do not align, there should be a clear reason why, and everyone should understand it.

Common Approach 1: The Function Focused Format

The functional format is probably the most widely used EOP structure, according to CPG 101v3. It starts with a base plan that provides an overview of the emergency response system. From there, functional annexes break down how major responsibilities are carried out, often grouped into categories such as communications, direction and control, law enforcement, mass care, public information, transportation, etc. Most plans then add hazard-specific appendices to explain how the jurisdiction responds to a particular threat.

For example, your response to a pandemic is fundamentally different from a hazardous materials spill. Those unique details are detailed in a hazard-specific annex rather than scattered throughout the EOP.

While functional formats are popular, they come with a common challenge. If the planning team does not spend time defining the right “buckets” for annexes, the plan can quickly become lengthy and cumbersome. You may find yourself writing long sections about things your jurisdiction does not even do (for example, a rural community may have no Search and Rescue function, as they rely on a state or regional team), or repeating the same information across multiple annexes.

Take communications and public alert and warning, two additional functional annexes. Where do you put IPAWS responsibilities? How do you avoid writing the same procedure twice, once in the Base Plan and once in the functional annex? Or consider volunteer and donations management. Should it be paired with private sector coordination or stand alone? Without careful design, functional annexes can start to overlap in ways that make maintenance harder.

Some communities map their functional annexes to Emergency Support Functions or to the core capabilities. This can work well, but the same caution applies. The structure should support how your community operates, not the other way around.

Common Approach 2: The Department or Agency Focused Format

A second widely used structure organizes the EOP around agencies or departments. The base plan again sets context, but the annexes or sections are arranged by entities such as fire, law enforcement, EMS, emergency management, public health, and public works. Hazard-specific procedures are then added as appendices.

This approach works best in jurisdictions where agencies operate independently with well-established authorities and capabilities. It reflects how many New England communities function, especially smaller towns where each department has its own culture, staffing, and equipment.

A department-focused plan can feel intuitive during response. When someone reads the fire annex, they know it covers tasks that fall under the fire chief’s authority. When they open the public works annex, they see guidance tied directly to that department’s responsibilities.

The challenge is coordination. Department-focused plans sometimes make it harder to see how actions intersect across agencies. If not written carefully, it can create the impression that everyone operates in silos. Strong cross-referencing and a clear base plan help solve that issue.

Connect the EOP to the Rest of Your Planning Ecosystem

A strong EOP is not a standalone document. Think about how it ties into other plans across the organization. Continuity plans, administrative policies, mitigation plans, EOC action plans, and department standard operating procedures all intersect with your EOP. The structure of the EOP should support those relationships rather than conflict with them.

For example, if your personnel policies outline specific authority for emergency hiring or recall procedures, your EOP should acknowledge that. If your continuity plan establishes order of succession or essential functions, your EOP should point toward those expectations. This alignment helps eliminate contradictions and reduces confusion across planning documents.

Templates Are a Starting Point, Not a Destination

Planning templates can be helpful, especially for smaller communities or teams with limited staff capacity. They provide a baseline that prevents you from starting with a blank page. But a template is not the plan.

Before you start filling in sections, ask whether the structure makes sense for your community. A template created in Texas may not align with how emergency management functions in New Hampshire. Vermont’s planning guidance looks different from Massachusetts. Your jurisdiction may need to include specific EOP annexes for grant compliance, meeting statutory requirements, or insurance incentives.

Always adapt the structure before you build the content.

What Approaches Have You Seen?

Across New England (and beyond), there is no single right answer for how to structure an EOP. Some communities take a hybrid approach that blends functional and department-focused elements. Others follow state templates closely. Some use ESFs. Some use core capability categories. The best structure is simply the one that makes your plan usable, maintainable, and aligned with your real-world operations.

If you have alternative models you’ve seen work well, we would love to hear about them.

Final Thoughts

An Emergency Operations Plan is not a checkbox. It is a strategic tool and a roadmap for how your municipality acts when disasters strike. Using FEMA’s CPG guidance, grounded in NIMS principles, your community can build a robust, practical, and resilient EOP that brings clarity to chaos.

By having that plan in place, you are not just preparing for the unexpected. You are building trust, setting expectations, and laying the foundation for effective response and recovery. At Next Wave Preparedness + PDR Strategies, we believe every community deserves a plan that works, and we are here to help you build it.