Millions of sardines washed up dead along Aucho beach in the small town of Quemchi located in the eastern shore of Chiloé Island on January 27, 2017.

It is the first time that such a cataclysmic phenomenon occurs in this coastal community.

Not only the worst wildfires in decades are currently plaguing Chile. Yesterday, millions of dead sardines were covering the beach of Aucho in Quemchi, Chile.

The dead fish were first discovered by tourists visiting the region, then the unexplained phenomenon started to interest baffled local residents.

The dead bodies cover an area of at least 300 meters long.

The Chilean Navy is investigating the water (temperature and contamination).

Now huge amounts of gulls are eating the putrefacted fish.

Here a small video about this catastrophic fish die-off.

The acting U.S. Attorney General, Sally Yates, was fired Monday night hours after she refused to defendPresident Trump's executive order regarding immigration because she is not convinced it is "lawful," according to a letter.

In a statement, the White House said Yates "betrayed the Department of Justice" and was "weak on borders" and said she was being replaced by Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Boente moved quickly to rescind the guidance in Yates' letter, noting in a statement released Monday night that the department's Office of Legal Counsel "found the Executive Order both lawful on its face and properly drafted." Boente then directed staffers "to do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our President."

"Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration," the White House statement added. "It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country."

In the letter, Yates wrote: "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful."

"Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so."

Trump's order, which went into effect Friday, affects immigration from seven countries that have predominantly Muslim populations, temporarily bans certain travelers and places indefinite restrictions on Syrian refugees.

The order sparked protests at airports across the country, as well as legal action. A federal judge issued a stay on part of the order regarding deportations.

Yates, who was nominated by former President Obama and confirmed in May 2015, wrote that the "order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions."

View gallery

Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for Refusing to Defend Immigration Order (ABC News)

"My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts," she wrote. "In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right."

She also wrote that the Office of Legal Counsel's review of the order "does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just."

Before Trump signed the executive order, DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel offered the White House a "narrow" assessment of whether the orders were illegal on their face, according to a Justice Department official.

"Through administrations of both parties, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has consistently been asked by the White House to review Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. That review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC's view, a proposed Executive Order is on its face lawful and properly drafted. OLC has continued to serve this traditional role in the present administration," the DOJ official said a statement.

The office's legal review is generally conducted without the involvement of DOJ leadership, and OLC's legal review "does not address the broader policy issues inherent in any executive order," the statement continued.

According to a DHS official, as of Sunday night, there were 735 encounters at ports of entry related to the executive order and no one remains detained.

In addition, there was confusion over whether or not the executive order applied to green card holders from the countries, until DHS Sec. John Kelly issued a statement Sunday, ordering that the entry of lawful permanent residents was in "the national interest," allowing those people to enter the U.S. absent any "significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare."

After Yates' letter was released, Trump Tweeted on Monday night that the "Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G."

And on MSNBC, White House adviser Stephen Miller said that the acting attorney general's memo is a "demonstration of how politicized our legal system has become" and defended the president’s authority to determine who is allowed to enter the country.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer defended the implementation of the president’s immigration executive order during his press briefing Monday, telling ABC News' Cecilia Vega that the interests of national security outweighed the uncertainty that was caused to those who were stuck in limbo when they arrived in the U.S.

"Coming into this country is a privilege, and be able to come to America is a privilege not a right and it is our duty and it is the president's goal to make sure that everyone who comes to this country to the best of our ability is here because they want to enjoy this country and come in peacefully and so he takes that obligation extremely seriously," he said.

Jack Date and Jordyn Phelps contributed reporting to this story.

Here’s what Trump’s decision means for the Dakota Access Pipeline

This story was originally published by High Country News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the pipeline industry have been locked in bitter dispute over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The 1,172-mile pipeline is nearly finished, except for a section that would cross under Lake Oahe, which the tribe relies on for water. But this week, they were on the same page: They agree Trump’s executive actions will likely lead to authorizations first for the Dakota Access Pipeline and then other big projects.

On Tuesday, the president signed a memorandum instructing the U.S. Army and the Army Corps of Engineers to “review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, and with such conditions as are necessary or appropriate, requests for approvals to construct and operate (the Dakota Access Pipeline).” It also directs the Army to “consider, to the extent permitted by law,” whether to rescind the Obama administration memorandum that stalled construction last month. Following that memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the agency on Jan. 18 issued itsnotice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and asked for public comment due Feb. 20 before deciding whether to allow an easement needed to complete construction. The Trump memorandum also asked the Army to consider dropping that environmental impact statement.

Trump’s presidential memorandum on the Dakota Access Pipeline is full of legal language and doesn’t directly order the permit necessary for the pipeline to be completed. Still both sides concede that it paves the way for the pipeline to go ahead, probably more effectively than a direct order would have.

Industry representatives say the muted language will make it harder for successful legal challenges once the Army approves the pipeline. The president also signed another memorandum in support of reviving the Keystone XL pipeline to bring tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, and an executive order mandating that environmental reviews of infrastructure be expedited. “They did it for strategic reasons,” says John Stoody, a vice president of the Association of Oil Pipelines. “While the memorandums look vaguer on the surface (than directly ordering an easement), they’re actually stronger legally and have a better chance in resulting in a positive outcome.” Industry officials heralded Trump’s actions as an early indication that a new era of job-creating infrastructure projects has dawned.

The Standing Rock Sioux’s chief lawyer, Jan Hasselman, says under a straightforward reading of Trump’s Dakota Access Pipeline memorandum, the Corps should still go forward with the full environmental impact statement and additional consultation with the tribe as ordered by the Army. That would take many months. “Do I think that’s what’s going to happen? No,” Hasselman, an attorney for Earthjustice, conceded.

One strong point in Trump’s favor, industry officials say, is that even the Obama administration argued that the Army had been on sound legal footing when it initially conducted a streamlined environmental review instead of the full study it’s now planning. “The last administration itself admitted it comported with the law,” Stoody says.

Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy made this point when announcing the decision to stall the pipeline to conduct an environmental impact statement and further consult with the tribe. “I want to be clear that this decision does not alter the Army’s decision that the Corps’ prior reviews and actions comported with legal requirements,” Darcy wrote in a memorandum Dec. 4. “Rather, my decision acknowledges and addresses that a more robust analysis of alternatives can and should be done under these circumstances, before an easement is granted for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross the Missouri River on Corps land.”

If, as expected, the Corps approves the easement, the tribe intends to challenge it in court. Hasselman underscored that Trump’s memorandum doesn’t mention the tribe, its treaty rights, or its concerns about water quality. “This is another action in a long history of sidestepping treaty rights and trampling on the rights of indigenous people,” he said. “If this is how the Trump administration is going to be approaching issues in Indian country, it’s going to be a long four years.”

Dave Archambault II, chair of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told reporters that he had repeatedly tried to speak with the Trump administration but was rebuffed.

The tribe got the attention of the Obama administration last year after thousands of protesters gathered in and near the reservation to protest the pipeline plans. Now, the tribe has asked demonstrators to leave by Feb. 18, because of concerns for their health and welfare. “We’re asking that the camp be cleared. We’re asking that people don’t come,” Archambault said during a conference call Wednesday with reporters. “The fight is now in D.C.”

Archambault called on the public to stand up and for civil servants to resist the Trump administration, warning that many more attacks on the environment and people’s rights are on the way. “Now we have to go and make noise where we can be heard.”

(GRIST)