Speaking of those pesky salmon, lookie here:
[www.spokesman.com]
Be sure to check the link to their live fish cam.

Boardman/Port of Morrow, as noted above, added what seemed like a tedious middle stage in the shipping process, but by doing so it would have alleviated much of the concern about increased train traffic, coal dust, etc., downriver through the most "beloved" section of the Gorge, as well as through those urban and suburban areas around both Portland and Puget Sound. The supposed "victory" in having the coal barge terminal at Boardman denied will eventually be seen as backfiring into the faces of downstream NIMBYs, now that BNSF is already increasing coal capacity through its next available export option in western B.C., which will result in more coal trains through the Gorge, up through Seattle, and along Puget Sound. This could even turn into a state vs. state battle if western Washington residents get it into their heads that all the new coal passing through their turf could have been exported through an Oregon terminal instead.

As for the economics and practicality of a rail-to-barge transfer so relatively close to where those barges would transfer into export ships, just look at the terminals on the Snake and Columbia that transfer much of the immediate region's grain into barges for the short, cheaper trip downriver to export. Not the exact same scenario as a unit train coming from as far away as Wyoming, but the savings in cost and congestion would probably work out to advantage there as well.