Proceed with extreme caution. Remember, USFS has used the Recreational Enhancement Act as the basis for its user fees even though the act specifically prohibits several of those fees, as confirmed by the federal courts.
I have looked over the bill which has such broad brush strokes it's impossible to understand the impact to the public other than you will get to use your cell phone more and if you're a Boy Scout troop you will be even less regulated than you ignore now (I think back to the 30-40 Boy Scouts in Indian Heaven last September who ignored the 12-person limit).
Section 101 is geared for outfitter/guides, specifically youth groups. Less regulations.
Section 102 is planning and managing recreation. Investment in better camping and picnic sites is a plus, but privatization of these sites means more fees because private companies only honor specific passes and the Golden Age Pass has not been treated with the respect it was said to have had at the time of purchase.
Section 103 smells of regulation, fees and limits...otherwise it wouldn't be here.
Section 104 is great for people who like to shoot guns on public lands, but bad for everyone else. Establishing nice sites for shooters will end up in fees and that will just drive people back out into the woods. The advantage is strictly for those who are willing to pay the fees for a nice site...but if that was what they wanted to do, they would just go to a gun club like the one in Sherwood.
Section II ironically is titled "Improving Recreational Opportunities" like... Strange, I did not actually read anything about recreational opportunities being improved. I don't count enhanced Facebook reception as a recreational opportunity.
Section 201 will create cell towers in the wilderness - oh what a joy.
Section 202 is just another layer on the existing marine boards' rules and regs.
Section 203 smells of limits on people enjoying their public land. I remember a meeting with the USFS where they were proud of themselves for "interpreting" NEPA's "count" to mean "restrict." So, when I see "maintain" I get really nervous.
Section 204 is strange to me. I have trail maps and I have forest service road maps. They have existed for decades, and are updated periodically. Maybe this is one of those periodic updates.
Title III doesn't address recreation, but communities near the recreational sites.
I would have been a whole lot more excited to read of how many miles of increased trails there would be, or better roads and parking lots (but that does come with a fee). These are the recreational opportunities I would consider (a) enhancements and {b) opportunities.
Right now we have usage fees for trails that had always been free, dirty bathrooms, trails that are maintained by volunteer groups, and USFS employees who think "getting out in the field" means ticketing cars at the trailhead.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion and this is mine. I have worked in government for 30 years and am well aware how broad brush strokes in a PL or CFR result in specific regulations that bear no resemblance to the original bill.