A postscript.
Actually the Federal Rules do appear to require the government to prosecute an offense in the district in which is was committed unless an exception applies or the defendant requests transfer. "Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant, any victim, and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice." Fed. Rule Crim. Pro. 18.
This rule appears to have a constitutional basis. "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." Constitution of the United States, Article III. Section 2, Paragraph 3.
In addition, there are substantial limits on judges' sentencing discretion, which generally entails probation, a fine, and/or a term of commitment. Restitution is a possibility. See 18 USC 3551 et seq.
So while I have not researched the scope of judicial discretion, even setting aside Rule 18, I continue to doubt that a court could impose the type of creative, punishment discussed here, requiring the defendant to travel from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, which also raises OSHA concerns among others, without the consent of the defendant (and agreement of the NPS). This type of sentence could also raise constitutional due process concerns. The power of a federal sentencing judge, just like the power of certain NPS and NFS officials, is not limitless.
I offer this for information purposes only as I don't really enjoy internet debates.
