with no bids received, the Land Board lowered the price per ton and resubmitted the Tracts for bidding. Arch Coal was the only bidder for the Otter Creek Tracts In March 2010, the Land Board voted 3–2 to accept Arch Coal's bid for the Tracts. Litigation In reaching its decision to lease the Tracts, the Land Board was not required, under state statute, to consider any environmental impacts or consequences that would result from the proposed mine. After the Land Board approved the leases, Northern Plains Resource Council and other conservation groups filed suit in the Sixteenth Judicial District in Broadus, Montana. The groups argued in court documents that the Land Board did not consider the impacts on climate change that the new mine would have and that the Land Board did not consider a single alternative to the full development of the mine, as required by the Montana Environmental Policy Act. Montana moved the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that lacked legal standing to challenge the Land Board's decision, that the Montana Environmental Policy Act did not apply to decisions of the Land Board, and that the statute allowing the Land Board to not consider any environmental impacts was constitutional. After hearing argument on the issues, the court denied Montana's dismissal of the suit and allowed the case to proceed on the merits. As of November 2011, the case is still being litigated in the Sixteenth Judicial District. Other pending lawsuits Climate change trust litigation In May, 2011, several parents filed suit on behalf of their minor children in the Montana Supreme Court. The parents argued that the atmosphere was a public resource held in trust by Montana for the benefit Montana citizens, and that the state had an affirmatively duty to protect that resource from harms like climate change. The petition to the Montana Supreme Court listed many climate change related impacts that were occurring within the state and argued that "public trust" was impacted by these changes. Initially, the state did not respond to the lawsuit filed by the parents. The Montana Supreme Court however, ordered the state Attorney General’s office to respond to the petition. When the state Attorney General’s office did respond, they did not attack the merits of the parents’ argument but rather challenged the procedural posture of the case. The parents had filed their case under the "original jurisdiction" of the Montana