If this is what you are referring to, it’s correct. The direct channels you refer too are the output freqs on the repeaters in question. Receive is what you get from the repeater, transmit is what you talk into the repeater on.
Repeaters do not have a direct mode, your radio does. If repeaters operated in direct mode, would they be called “directors”?
Most radios in the Wildland realm have the capability to either push a button or flip a switch to go into direct mode, thus eliminating the repeater function. Agreement documents like this are used for agencies to program non-Wildland oriented radios to operate within the different jurisdictions when required, most likely on non field programmable radios. A non-wildland radio will have 4 separate channels for each repeater, just as outlined in the agreement. A Wildland oriented radio will normally only have 1 channel per repeater, and will use OST (operator selectable tones) to switch repeaters and a button/switch to use direct.
When you read the entire agreement, it pretty much spells it out. Some of the listed agencies do not respond initially to various types of calls, unless the AHJ is responding also. It doesn’t sound like a true boundary drop/auto aid situation, so that’s why the radio program is laid out in such a manner.
Additionally, much of the frequency information is outdated as soon as the next fire season arrives, or an new agreement is put in place. Personally, I would NEVER rely on a document that’s over a year old unless I’m physically able to confirm that the frequencies still work. I got embarrassed one time with an old frequency document while leading a strike team in Southern California, and swore it would never happen to me again.
My feelings are the same about the database. I would never add information unless I confirmed it was correct, or you’re just wasting the administrators time publishing bad information.
Repeaters do not have a direct mode, your radio does. If repeaters operated in direct mode, would they be called “directors”?
They are called remote bases. They transmit and receive on one frequency, then are linked back to the rest of the system via phone lines (internet included in some cases), UHF (in the NPS, USFS, etc.) or microwave. I don't know of many state repeaters or remote bases (CDF, DPR, DFW, Caltrans, CHP, OES) that aren't linked into the state's microwave backbone. That is probably what you are accustomed to. Microwave is in the minority on federal natural resource agency systems.
Most radios in the Wildland realm have the capability to either push a button or flip a switch to go into direct mode, thus eliminating the repeater function.
I retired quite a number of years ago and at the time none of the federal BK radios had a direct/repeat switch. I'm not sure they do now as I've never heard any direct traffic on any of the 3 nets on the Inyo NF. Most forests in R5 have a direct channel in the radios for forest, admin and sometimes service net. The direct channels are the odd numbered ones on the radio. Example CH1 is direct forest net, CH2 is repeater forest net, CH3 is direct admin net, CH4 is repeater admin net and CH5 is direct CH 6 repeater. If they had a direct/repeater switch on the radio, this simplex channel would not be needed, leading me to believe the federal radios don't have this switch. The same is true for the NPS and BLM radio programs. I know I hear direct traffic on Caltrans radios, both mobiles and handhelds, with frequent traffic where someone says "You're all broken up on direct, switch to repeater." I had a Caltrans radio at home for evenings while supervising the cleaning of a state rest area for a few years. It did not show separate channels for repeat and direct on it.
I think zerg was thinking that each repeater site had a remote base as well. Most of my experience is with with federal natural resource agency systems, which are different than most state and local systems. I worked in 4 states and 3 USFS regions, interfacing with 2 large national parks (Grand Canyon and Yosemite), one small national monument, the BLM in one state, 4 state governments, 8 counties and private comm providers; both large [ATT and MCA (now Sprint)] and small; in remote, rural counties. I could compare the fed, with state and the local systems.
The federal systems are different.
First, there are few remote bases, most often just one for an entire park, forest or BLM district. Some might have a couple more when terrain requires it. The Inyo NF has two, one for the north net on Silver Peak near Bishop and one on Mazourka Peak for the south net. Both are line of sight to the comm center in Bishop. Each have repeaters at them as well. The number of remote bases on the Angeles and San Bernardino NF's is unusual in my experience, It all depends on the topography of the unit, the distances involved and the work loads (i.e. more work more radio traffic).
Second, the federal systems, on average cover rougher topography over wider areas. Sometimes this requires different nets for different areas, common in the Pacific Northwest and in the Northern Rockies, some of those having 2-4 nets on one national forest. National parks are installing more "multicast systems" as well, with each repeater having a different frequency pair, or some that have a common input frequency that is linked and uses voting to send the best signal to all the other repeaters. In some national parks fire and admin have different nets. The workload and topography of Grand Canyon National Park requires law enforcement, medical, admin, fire and tactical repeater nets, each on 3 sites that are multicast, two more that are not networked currently and not on all nets and 2 more sites proposed for all the nets. All the repeaters have, or will have, a common input frequency for each net. The existing system uses 24 frequencies for the repeaters and I'm not entirely sure how they are linked.
Third the linking is different. Microwave linking is expensive to install and maintain, plus is best when commercial power is available. Commercial power is not that common on mountain peaks in National Parks and National Forests, so solar powered 400 MHz linking is more common. Microwave requires a more substantial tower and larger, more obtrusive dishes, not compatible with scenic view goals on many peaks. A small beam is the only additional antenna required for UHF linking. Another issue concerning federal natural resource systems are repeater sites are in wilderness areas, where either Congress draws a small circle around the repeaters that are not included in the wilderness designation legislation or the bill lists the repeater sites as known exceptions to the Wilderness Act of 1964's "no permanent structures" clause. The repeater sites are allowed to remain as long as they aren't upgraded physically from that in existence when the bill of wilderness designation was signed. In some cases, a 2-3 repeater sites outside a wilderness area were added to replace one site in a wilderness that needed upgrading and/or was tough to get to. These replacement sites would be vehicle accessible and not helicopter, horseback and hiking/climbing sites. Linking (UHF and microwave) takes more power, so most of the time a repeater site is stand alone, without linking and thus no remote bases used. As an example the Sequoia National Forest was using a lot of microwave links at one point, many or all of those provided by the State of California. That got to be quite expensive and I understand there was some USFS 400 MHz linking put back into the system as federal natural resource agency budgets plummeted. In California microwave linking popped up on the forests with the highest budgets, which frequently came with a lot of "timber money," those forests with a lot of timber cutting, e.g. the Plumas, the Sequoia, the Sierra and the Stanislaus. I think the Shasta-T is included, but I'm not sure. The Klamath is likely in that position as well, but I'm not familiar with their linking at all. That is no longer true as timber sales have been dialed back to match the levels that ecosystems can sustain. How the Angeles got so much microwaving, I can't explain.
There isn't a "one size fits all" type of system in the NPS, USFS, BLM and USFWS. There are some similarities, but topography, workload and budgets have a great deal of influence. If a person's experience, both working and listening, is on state/local systems, you have to put on a different thinking cap when considering federal natural resource systems.