Pickerel Lake vs Rolling Stone Lake
Water quality, depth, fish species, and recreation comparison.
Pickerel Lake reads lower on nutrients and algae than Rolling Stone Lake. Both are in Wisconsin.
Both Pickerel Lake and Rolling Stone Lake sit in Wisconsin. A same-state comparison strips out the state-level water-quality regime as a variable: any differences in the readings here are about the lakes themselves, not the agencies sampling them. The readings are close: Pickerel Lake and Rolling Stone 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.
Pickerel Lake
Good clarity, visible to about 10 ft.
Rolling Stone Lake
Murky, only visible to about 5.7 ft.
Side-by-Side Metrics
| Metric | Pickerel Lake | Rolling Stone Lake |
|---|---|---|
| Water Clarity | 10 ft Better | 5.7 ft |
| Phosphorus | 20.4 µg/L Better | 33.1 µg/L |
| Chlorophyll-a (Algae) | No data | No data |
| Maximum Depth | 19 ft Better | 12 ft |
| Surface Area | 1,272 acres | 682 acres |
| Public Access | Yes | Yes |
| Fish Species | 4 | 6 Better |
| Trophic State | mesotrophic | eutrophic |
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 Pickerel Lake or Rolling Stone Lake against a different lake.
Verdict
Pickerel Lake reads lower on nutrients and algae than Rolling Stone Lake. Water clarity: 10 ft vs 5.7 ft. For more fish-species variety, Rolling Stone Lake edges ahead with 6 documented species.
Source: EPA National Aquatic Resource Surveys, 2026.