Protect

MOON LAKE

Duchesne County
Fathom Restoration
40° 34′ 51″ N
110° 30′ 13″ WMOON LAKE
Donate to Protect Moon Lake
There was a lake here before the dam, and Reclamation estimates it held 13,900 acre feet. In August 2026 the reservoir held less than that. Every figure on this page is quoted from the record it appears in.
13,900Acre feet in the natural lake the dam was built below
1933The year the gauge above this lake started. The dam was finished in 1938
0.7%Spread across four published surface areas. The closest agreement in this series
NoneCondition assessment published for this high hazard federal dam
0Utah advisory lists naming this water
Four live federal readings, and for once they agree with each other
This is the first lake in this series with a working gauge above the lake and below the dam at the same time, alongside a genuine daily storage series. Read them together: the inflow, the release and the level are three measurements of one story. There is no weather card here, because four water measurements is a better use of the space.
contacting federal services
Water in the lakeNRCS
reading the daily storage record
Of capacityTwo figures
working it against the combined total
The river above the lakeUSGS
reading site 09289500
The river below the damUSGS
reading site 09291000
About  ·  01

There was a lake here first

Reclamation built this dam just downstream of a natural lake it estimates held 13,900 acre feet. In August 2026 the reservoir held less than that.

Nearly every reservoir in this series is a river that was stopped. This one already existed. Reclamation states it plainly :

"Moon Lake Dam is a zoned earthfill, rockfaced dam built just downstream from a naturally occurring lake known as Moon Lake."

And it says how big the lake was before anyone touched it :

"The original lake has an estimated capacity of 13,900 acrefeet."

That one figure resolves what looks like a contradiction on the same page. Reclamation writes that the reservoir "has a total capacity of 35,800 acre feet" and, a sentence later, that "The combined total of the original lake plus constructed storage is 49,500 acre feet" . Those are not two capacities in conflict. They are the built part and the whole.

The arithmetic is close and not exact: 49,500 less the natural 13,900 leaves 35,600 against the 35,800 stated. A two hundred acre foot difference inside one page, and this page prints all three figures rather than smoothing them.

The dam inventory took the larger number. It carries 49,500 in its maximum storage, its normal storage and its combined storage fields, all three , with no mention of the lake underneath.

The dam is from 1938 . The gauge above the lake is older than the dam: its daily discharge record starts 1 May 1933 , and the reservoir storage record starts 9 December 1937 . Somebody was measuring this water before there was a reservoir to measure.

On 13 August 2026 the federal storage gauge read 10,540 acre feet .

The lake that was here before the dam is estimated at 13,900 .

So the reservoir is currently holding about three quarters of what the natural lake held, and about a fifth of what the dam was built to hold. That is not a statement about the dam or about anyone's management. It is what a high country reservoir looks like in August after an irrigation season.

The shape of this summer is on the record and it is worth reading. Storage fell from 14,862 acre feet on 1 July to 8,839 on 15 July, a drop of about forty per cent in a fortnight. Then it rose again, steadily, to 10,540 by 13 August .

The two river gauges explain the rise, and both are on the strip at the top of this page. When this page was built the river above the lake was running 52.5 cubic feet a second and the river below the dam was running 5.25 . Ten times as much water entering as leaving. That is a reservoir refilling, and it is visible in three independent federal readings at once.

This is a Reclamation dam, and unusually for this series the federal government owns and regulates it rather than the state .

FieldValue
Owner typeFederal, with the Bureau of Reclamation named as owner, funder, regulator, inspector and operator
State regulatedNo. Federally regulated Yes
Completed1938, earth, 101 feet high and 1,108 feet long
Hazard potentialHigh
Last inspected21 September 2021, on a four year cycle
Condition assessment"Not Available", and the assessment date field is empty
Record last updated22 October 2025
This series has now found four different versions of the same problem. A high hazard dam with a rating from 1991 against a 2023 inspection. One with a 2012 rating against annual inspections. One rebuilt from the toe up whose years modified field is empty. And this one, which has no rating to be stale.

The record is not neglected: it was updated in October 2025 and carries an emergency action plan revised in September 2022 . It simply does not publish an assessment of the dam's condition, while publishing a hazard classification of High.

The inventory flags this dam's land status as the Uintah and Ouray Reservation . This page records that because it is in the record and does not develop it, because no source retrieved here explains what the association is, and a land status flag in a dam database is not a statement about jurisdiction. The same flag appears on another dam in this series, forty miles west.

Search for Moon Lake and you will mostly find a power company. Moon Lake Electric Association is a member owned rural electric cooperative headquartered in Roosevelt, about forty miles from here . It is a different organisation in every respect and it dominates the name.

The federal water body dataset will not even tell you how many Moon Lakes there are. A query for the name returns a flag saying it has more results than it will send, and the first four it does return are all in other states : two in the upper midwest, one in California, and none of them this one.

And there is a second Moon Lake inside the same federal region as this one, in the Upper Colorado, over the line in Colorado . Filtering by region does not separate them.

One oddity this build could not explain. The federal water body record for this lake carries a Geographic Names identifier, 01443576 . A query to the names gazetteer's hydrographic layer for the exact name Moon Lake, filtered to Utah, returns zero features . This page states what each dataset returned and draws no conclusion: gazetteer layers differ in coverage, and an empty result from one layer is not evidence that a feature is unnamed.

Science  ·  02

Four sources agree about the size, and nobody has an advisory

The closest surface area agreement in this series, the second closest outline match, a clean negative on both mercury lists, and almost nothing else from the state.

Every other page in this series has a section explaining why the published surface areas disagree. This one does not need one.

SourceSurface area
The federal water body dataset, as published 768.0 acres
The same polygon, added up by hand for this page769.1 acres
Reclamation, at 8,137 feet elevation 770 acres
The dam inventory 773 acres
Seven tenths of one per cent from top to bottom. For comparison, the previous lake in this series had a federal polygon seven per cent short of the only published figure, one before that was forty per cent short, and one had no published area at all.

The polygon is stamped at 8,083 and Reclamation gives its 770 acres at 8,137 feet . Fifty four feet apart, and the areas still agree to under one per cent, which is what a steep sided mountain basin looks like: the shoreline barely moves as the level does.

The one figure that does not agree is the drainage area. Reclamation gives 110.0 square miles and the dam inventory gives 112.25 . Two per cent apart, both federal, and neither is adopted here.

No maximum depth, no mean depth and no shoreline length is published by anyone.

The shape in the header is traced from the Fathom print artwork and checked against the federal water body polygon .

MeasureTracedFederalGap
Width against length0.65580.66321.11%
Share of its bounding box0.2660.2563.9%
Area, matched on length790.0 acres769.1 acres2.71% over
One and a tenth per cent on shape. Only one lake in this series has come closer. The area gap of under three per cent, matched on length, is shoreline smoothing: the federal polygon carries a hundred and eighty three points of indented bank and the traced outline rounds them, and a smoother line around the same shape encloses slightly more.

The self check is clean. Adding up the federal polygon by hand gives 3.1126 square kilometres against the 3.1080 the dataset publishes, agreement to about fifteen hundredths of one per cent.

Two and two thirds miles long and about one and three quarter miles across at the widest, from the federal polygon. It is a long, narrow, north to south basin, which is what a glacial trough looks like when you put a dam at the bottom of it.

Moon Lake carries no fish consumption advisory. That is a clean negative and it is rarer on these pages than it should be.

ListResult
The environmental department's advisory page Does not appear, in any row, for any species
The health department's twelve water list, 2022 Not among them
Both were checked with strict existence questions rather than by reading the table, which is the standing method on these pages: an enumeration of that advisory table has twice returned a false result in this series, once omitting a water that was there and once dropping the mercury column from every row.

What a clean negative means and does not mean. It means no Utah agency has published a consumption advisory for this water. It does not mean anyone has sampled it and found nothing, and no sampling record for this lake was found either way.

This section is short because the record is. Almost nothing about the water quality of this lake could be retrieved from Utah's environmental department.

What was checkedResult
The department's per water recreational monitoring page, on both URL patterns it usesClosed to automated reading on every path tried
Its statewide harmful algal blooms index A 2018 archive, and this lake is not on it
The local health authority for this part of the Uinta Basin No bloom page, no advisory list and no mention of this lake
Impairment listing, any watershed plan, the beneficial use class for this waterNone retrieved
So this page cannot tell you the bloom status of this lake, and says so rather than implying an all clear. Absence from a 2018 index proves nothing: at another reservoir in this series a local health department carried a danger advisory while the state page for the same water displayed an all clear two years out of date.

What can be said is narrow. No advisory for this water was found anywhere, by any agency, and the local health authority publishes no bloom programme at all. Check with them before getting in.
Recreation  ·  03

Where everything is

Six places, two of which are lakes in other states with the same name.

The whole lake
Midpoint of the USGS National Hydrography Dataset water body extent, derived rather than published
Six places, two of which are lakes in other states with the same name.

The campground sits on the shore, run by the Ashley National Forest .

PublishedValue
Elevation"The campground is situated on the lake shore at an elevation of 8,100 feet"
SeasonMay to September
Boats"The Moon Lake Resort is adjacent to the campground and offers small engine boat rentals"
Drinking waterBoth "drinking water and trash collection are provided" and "Potable water is not available at this site"
Those last two are on the same page. This page prints both and picks no winner, which is the standing rule here, but it is worth saying plainly: if you are planning to camp, carry water. An agency page that says both things cannot be relied on for the one that would leave you short.

No horsepower limit and no wake restriction was found in any agency source. The only boating statement is that a resort next door rents small engine boats, which is a description of a business and not a rule. It is not a state park either, checked against the full Utah roster of forty six .

Elevation figures for this water cluster but do not match. The campground page says the campground is at 8,100 feet ; Reclamation gives the lake surface as 8,137 feet at 770 acres ; the federal polygon is stamped 8,083 ; and the gauge above the lake sits at 8,121.40 . Four federal figures within about fifty feet, measuring four different things.

Verbatim from the Forest Service :

"From Duchesne, Utah, take State Hwy 87 north for 19 miles. Turn north onto to 20780 W towards Mountain Home, then continue north 13 miles to the Forest Boundary and Forest Road 131. Follow road 131 for 5 miles to the campground."

Thirty seven miles, ending on a numbered forest road, at eight thousand one hundred feet. No surface description, no seasonal closure date and no clearance requirement is stated by the managing agency . The campground season of May to September is the only seasonal bound any agency publishes, and a campground season is not a road status.

This page does not invent an ice off date or a gate closure. At this elevation the road almost certainly closes with snow, and almost certainly is not the same thing as the record says so.
Fishing  ·  04

Five fish from one sentence, and a guidebook that could not be read twice the same way

Nothing here is flagged, because this lake is on no advisory list and there is no hard species evidence for it. And the state guidebook produced a rule for this water that does not exist in it.

Tiger trout

The Forest Service writes "tiger, rainbows and brook trout, kokanee salmon and splake" . The agency's word is just "tiger", in a list of trout, so this page draws a tiger trout and tells you that the reading is this page's and not the agency's.

Forest Service

Rainbow trout

Named in the same sentence . The only one of the five that needs no interpretation at all.

Forest Service

Brook trout

Named in the same sentence . It is drawn because the Forest Service names it, not because two of the other four are hybrids with a brook trout parent.

Forest Service

Splake

Named in the same sentence . A brook by lake trout hybrid, so somebody stocked it. No stocking record for this lake could be retrieved, and lake trout is not drawn.

Forest Service

Kokanee salmon

Named in the same sentence . Drawn in spawning colour, which is the form that makes it identifiable beside four trout. Utah closes kokanee possession statewide from 10 September to 30 November, which is a general rule and not a rule about this water.

Forest Service

That is the whole evidenced list, and its entire source is the Forest Service campground page :

"tiger, rainbows and brook trout, kokanee salmon and splake"

No fish on this page is flagged, and that is deliberate. On most pages in this series the flagged species are the ones named in a mercury advisory, because an advisory requires tissue sampling and is the hardest species evidence there is. This lake is on neither advisory list , so there is no hard species evidence here at all, only a recreation page.

A recreation page is a real agency source and it is a weak one for a species list. It is written to help people plan a trip, not to record what was caught in a net. The Forest Service's own group site page for the same lake names a different fish again, which is what that kind of source does.

No wildlife division survey, fishery report or stocking record for this lake could be retrieved at any address tried across both directories the division uses. So five fish rest on one sentence, and the page says so rather than presenting them as a surveyed inventory.

This page does not tell you whether Moon Lake has a special fishing rule. Not because nobody looked, but because the document could not be read the same way twice.

Here is what happened, because it matters more than the answer would.

A first reading of the 2023 guidebook returned a Moon Lake entry, page 34, with the correct county, reading limit 4 trout of which only 2 may be splake. A separately issued strict existence question confirmed it. Two checks, both positive.

Both were wrong. A full transcription of those pages shows the printed run going Lost Creek Reservoir, then Mountain Dell Creek, then Mountain Dell Reservoir, then Mud Creek . No Moon Lake. And the first reading had placed it after Mountain Dell, which is alphabetically impossible.

Then the 2026 edition failed the same way in a different direction. Three transcriptions of the same section returned three different runs of entries. One of them named "Newton Reservoir, Rich County" . This series built the Newton Reservoir page and confirmed from five agency sources that it is in Cache County. A read that gets a known county wrong is a read that is inventing.

So the honest statement is that this build could not establish it. A strict question phrased so that finding an entry was the easy answer returned not found , and a transcription of the printed M run returned Mammoth Creek, Manning Meadow Reservoir, McGath Lake and Minersville Reservoir with no Moon Lake . Both point the same way. Neither is trustworthy on its own, and every transcription attempted was incomplete.

What to do with that if you are going fishing. Check the current guidebook yourself . And be aware that a plausible looking Moon Lake rule, with a splake clause and the right county attached, is exactly the kind of thing that circulates, because this build generated one twice without meaning to.

This lake is not named on the wildlife division's Blue Ribbon page or in its most recent funding release . But the release contains a sentence worth quoting, because it is exactly the sort of thing that gets misread.

It states that there are currently 41 waterbodies including two mountain areas, and describes them as including streams, rivers and lakes on the Uinta mountains .

Moon Lake is a lake on the Uinta mountains. That sentence is a description of a category, not a designation of this water, and reading it as one would be the same mistake this series made once already and had to correct.

The division names four project waters in that release and this is not one of them . Its Blue Ribbon page publishes no list and no count at all . Not confirmed is the honest answer.

And nothing here came from the division's fishing application. It builds its content in the browser, so the served document contains no waterbody data for any water, and a search engine's stored title of it is not a source.
Recreation  ·  05

What to watch for

No incident found and a search full of other states, a reservoir that fell forty per cent in a fortnight, and eight thousand feet of elevation with no published road status.

No drowning, boating fatality, vehicle in the water, ice incident, submerged debris recovery or dive operation at this lake was found in any source, agency or press.

The name defeats the search completely. A search for a drowning at Moon Lake returns Mississippi first, then Michigan, Minnesota and California . The federal water body dataset itself will not say how many Moon Lakes exist: it reports that the query has more results than it will return.

Add the electric cooperative , which carries the name across a large part of eastern Utah and appears in local news constantly. A list assembled from search results for this name would be mostly other states and mostly not about a lake.

Two gaps in this build, stated rather than hidden. Duchesne County sheriff records and Utah public safety records were not queried directly. And no source states which agency has primary water rescue responsibility here, which is worth knowing at a federal reservoir on Forest Service land with a reservation land status flag on the dam .

The storage record for this summer is unusually legible, because the station serves a genuine daily series rather than a monthly one .

DateAcre feet
1 July 202614,862
15 July 20268,839, the low point
13 August 202610,540
Down about forty per cent in fourteen days, then up about nineteen per cent over the next four weeks . For anyone planning to be in or on this water, that is the number that matters more than the capacity. A shoreline that moves that fast in a steep basin moves the ramp, the depth under a boat and the bottom contour together.

And the level can be read against the two rivers. Inflow above the lake and release below the dam are both measured continuously , which is the first time in this series that both sides of a dam have had a working gauge.

The low point is the one worth carrying. At 8,839 acre feet this reservoir was holding under two thirds of what the natural lake beneath it is estimated to have held , and under a fifth of the 49,500 the dam inventory lists .

This is the highest water this series has covered, and elevation is the hazard that organises all the others.

FactSource
Lake surface about 8,137 feetReclamation
Campground season May to Septemberthe Forest Service
Access ends on five miles of forest roadthe Forest Service
No surface description, no closure date, no clearance requirementnot published by anyone
A four month published season at eight thousand feet tells you what the other eight months are, and no agency will tell you when the road opens or shuts. Ask the ranger district rather than a web page, including this one.

Cold water is the part people underestimate. A lake at this elevation fed by snowmelt off the High Uintas stays cold through the summer, and no agency source publishes a water temperature for this lake. Neither river gauge reports one either .

What this page will not do is guess at ice. No ice thickness, no ice safety notice and no winter closure was found in any agency source, and none is offered here.

In August 2026 this reservoir held less water than the natural lake it was built to enlarge.

Fathom Restoration is a Utah 501(c)(3) that runs volunteer dive cleanups and is built to pull what does not belong out of Utah water, statewide.

Donate to Protect Moon Lake

Every figure on this page is quoted from the source named beside it.

FATHOM RESTORATION
Six things on this page are narrower than what is usually written about Moon Lake. The capacity is given three ways, because Reclamation publishes a natural figure, a constructed figure and a combined one, and they do not quite add up. No fishing rule is stated either way, because the state guidebook returned a different answer on every reading and one of those readings placed a reservoir this series has independently checked in the wrong county. No fish on this page is flagged, because this water is on neither state advisory list and its whole species list rests on one sentence of a campground page. The bloom status is unresolved, because the state pages for this water are closed to automated reading and the local health authority publishes no bloom programme. No road closure date is given, because no agency publishes one for a road that ends at eight thousand one hundred feet. And the dam carries a hazard classification of High with no condition assessment at all. This is a reference for the public and is not a navigation chart.