Well, I normally charge $100 for this link. But I'm going to make an exception for you today, and it'll be only $50 (I accept paypal)
Here you go :
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5261774.pdf
As for your link , I notice a few things :
1) Whatever that is, has, as you see, the location being "within the boundaries of .... archaeological resources". And then it goes on to give a cross-reference to another one of their "orders". You might want to see what that cross-reference says, as to what the definition of these site boundaries are.
I'm going to bet it's sites that, for example, have been granted a trinomial # And is not simply "all NFS land, border-to-border". And as my prior answer says, I acknowledge that, of course, we can't be snooping around obvious historic sensitive monuments. Fine then. And sure, don't find stuff over 50 yrs. old (how good is your math ?). And seriously now, is anyone out in the middle of nowhere, to care in the first place ?
2) I see that the date of this edict that you linked, is 2014. Pretty recent. As if .... it needed "clarifying", and wasn't spelled out clearly prior to that date in 2014. Right ? Lest
why else need to spell it out here in 2014 if it were
already some sort of prohibition.
And as such, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that I know why such a thing came about in 2014 . And no, it wasn't because "someone must've left holes", or "someone was md'ing in front of an archie and made him mad", blah blah. Instead, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this has made its way into print, in 2014, because md'rs at that location went in grovelling asking "Can we metal detect ?". And their "pressing question" gets passed up the chain , till ... presto, a law (or clarification, etc..) is born. Gee, aren't we glad we asked ?