This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Protected areas Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places Stub‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Stub This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has two sections and three photos. Is it still really a stub? Thoughts? Mmoyer 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I checked the WikiProjectVirginia quality scale. Since this article has some good sources, some photos, and substantial content, I think it is at least a "Start" quality, so I upgraded it from stub to start. Smiller933 ( talk) 02:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• NESRA Sasquatch viewing area. ^[1]

I removed this, because honestly it hardly seems appropriate.

1) NESRA (the sasquatch people) have nothing to do with the park, and there is no NESRA presence (bigfoot viewing facilities, guided tours, etc.) in the part.

2) This is such a trivial part of such an extreme fringe that it doesn't bear mentioning. I'm all for including minority viewpoints and little known facts in the wikipedia, but even by bigfoot hunter standards, this is minor to the point of irrelevance. If they claim to turn up any kind of evidence, or draw some media attention, it should be reinstated by all means.