U.S. Forest Service Moves Headquarters to Salt Lake City

Chief Tom Schultz cites Utah's central location and pro-business culture as key factors in the agency's major restructuring.

Apr. 2, 2026 at 10:11pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A serene, sunlit painting of a modest Forest Service field office, capturing the quiet contemplation and sense of place that defines the agency's work in the Western landscape.The relocation of the U.S. Forest Service headquarters to Salt Lake City aims to bring the agency's leadership closer to the lands and communities it serves across the American West.Salt Lake City Today

The U.S. Forest Service is undergoing a sweeping reorganization, including moving its headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City, Utah. Chief Tom Schultz says the move will bring the agency's leadership closer to the 193 million acres of national forests it manages, with 87% of that land located in the West. The restructuring will also close nine regional offices and open 15 state-specific offices, mostly in the Western states.

Why it matters

The Forest Service's move to Salt Lake City is part of a broader effort to streamline the agency and bring decision-making closer to the lands and communities it serves. Conservationists have raised concerns that the changes could prioritize state interests over national ones, but Schultz argues the reorganization will improve management and build stronger partnerships with state, tribal, and local governments.

The details

The Forest Service's headquarters will relocate from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City, which Schultz calls 'the center of the West.' The agency will also close its nine regional offices and open 15 state-specific offices, mostly in Western states. Research and development will be consolidated under one director in Fort Collins, Colorado, with more than 50 research outposts set to close. The goal is to create a 'leaner, more efficient' agency that is 'closer to the public it serves'.

  • The Forest Service announced the restructuring on Tuesday.
  • The changes will not impact the agency's wildfire response efforts during the 2026 fire season.

The players

Tom Schultz

Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, who is overseeing the agency's major reorganization.

Spencer Cox

Governor of Utah, who praised the Forest Service's decision to move its headquarters to Salt Lake City.

The Wilderness Society

A conservation group that has expressed concerns about the Forest Service restructuring, arguing it could prioritize state interests over national ones.

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

A conservation group that is worried the move will reduce the federal workforce and bring the agency 'under the thumb' of state interests.

Trevor Barnson

A rancher who has been permitted to graze cattle on Forest Service land, and believes the restructuring will make the agency more responsive to local concerns.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This is a big win for Utah and the West. Nearly 90% of Forest Service lands are west of the Mississippi, so putting leadership closer to the lands they manage just makes sense.”

— Spencer Cox, Governor of Utah

“Ultimately, it's trying to bring this federal agency that has a higher calling — to be responsible to the American public and manage national forests in the public and national interest — to heel by moving them out West so they can be more under the thumb and under pressure by state interests.”

— Steve Bloch, Legal Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

“We feel like we've really been doing a good job of managing our forests — we have sound science, we care about what we're doing and we've entered into some unprecedented partnerships with the state and the Forest Service just in the past year to do a better job.”

— Valjay Rigby, President, Utah Farm Bureau Federation

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This reorganization of the U.S. Forest Service highlights the ongoing tensions between federal land management and state/local interests. While proponents argue the move will improve efficiency and responsiveness, critics fear it could undermine the agency's national mandate and prioritize regional concerns over broader public interests.