Little Cut Foot Lake vs Tamarack Bay Lake
Water quality, depth, fish species, and recreation comparison.
Tamarack Bay Lake reads lower on nutrients and algae than Little Cut Foot Lake. Both are in Minnesota.
Little Cut Foot Lake and Tamarack Bay Lake are both in Minnesota — a same-state head-to-head where the comparison comes down to lake-specific differences in depth, watershed, and monitoring history rather than the broader state-level water-quality regime. The readings are close: Little Cut Foot Lake and Tamarack Bay Lake sit within a narrow band of each other on phosphorus, chlorophyll-a and clarity. The per-parameter table below shows where the small differences actually live.
With readings this close, the choice between the two lakes turns on non-water-quality factors: depth, fish species, public access, distance from home. The per-lake pages below cover all of those.
Little Cut Foot Lake
Murky, only visible to about 6.6 ft.
Tamarack Bay Lake
Good clarity, visible to about 11.5 ft.
Side-by-Side Metrics
| Metric | Little Cut Foot Lake | Tamarack Bay Lake |
|---|---|---|
| Water Clarity | 6.6 ft | 11.5 ft Better |
| Phosphorus | 42 µg/L | 26 µg/L Better |
| Chlorophyll-a (Algae) | No data | 4.6 µg/L |
| Maximum Depth | 20 ft | 69.8 ft Better |
| Surface Area | 619 acres | 56,471 acres |
| Public Access | Yes | Yes |
| Fish Species | 15 | 20 Better |
| Trophic State | eutrophic | mesotrophic |
A green ✓ marks the better value for that metric (lower phosphorus / chlorophyll = cleaner; higher Secchi / depth / species count = better). Surface area and trophic state carry no tick — a bigger lake is not a better lake.
Swap a lake
Compare Little Cut Foot Lake or Tamarack Bay Lake against a different lake.
Verdict
Tamarack Bay Lake reads lower on nutrients and algae than Little Cut Foot Lake. Water clarity: 11.5 ft vs 6.6 ft. For fishing diversity, Tamarack Bay Lake also leads with 20 species.
Source: EPA National Aquatic Resource Surveys, 2026.