This study compares the requirements of three forest certification systems, the Sustainable Forestry Institute (SFI), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), with the 2005 McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan Revision. The analysis was done with a series of matrices comparing the requirements of SFI and FSC with the content of the McDonald-Dunn plan. ISO, which lacks specific requirements, was not included in the matrices. The McDonald-Dunn plan generally satisfies the SFI standard with the exception of the absence of specific written plans. Achieving FSC certification would require more substantive changes to McDonald-Dunn management practices. Specifically, FSC requirements that would be problematic for McDonald-Dunn managers include chemical use reduction, prohibition of genetically modified organisms, maintenance of ecological functions and the limitation of plantations. ISO is a flexible system in which the managers create their own standards and means of monitoring compliance. The McDonald-Dunn plan already contains these elements. Although SFI and FSC certification would provide an external review of management and teaching and research opportunities about certification, it would limit other research, be expensive, and restrict the outreach ability of the forest regarding industrial forestry practices. The more flexible ISO approach is most compatible with the McDonald-Dunn plan.