Interesting description of these efforts here. You can click on either image (above and below) and they will be large enough to read (at least on some devices).
Here are the considerations that led to those choices:
These considerations are on page 26. I think the social justice discussion would have been interesting to sit in on. Thinking about the Colorado Front Range, for example, there are certainly poor people in cities that could be influenced by smoke. There are more people who could be harmed in cities, for sure, by their very nature of being concentrated human populations. And, of course, many parts of the Front Range have exceedingly high income folks in the forests or the edge (think Boulder) and the less-well-off tend to spread to the grasslands east. But if we’re thinking cumulative impacts of smoke as air pollution, it would be worse where there is already pollution problems (like the Denver Metro area).
Nevertheless, most of the landscapes selected were not near large cities. Anyway, not that I think that there is a “right way” and a “wrong way” to do social justice, as it’s quite complex, it would be interesting to know more of the details. I also wonder whether the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture think about it the same way. Does anyone know?