On the east side, they migrate a long long ways. I helped out on a study where whitefish were radio tagged in the Wenaha. The White fish that migrated the farthest moved out of the wenaha, down the Grande Ronde, and up into the snake, swimming way upstream near the Imnaha confluence with the Snake. They migrated back to the Wenaha the following year. This is way over 100 miles round trip. There is quite a bit of large scale migration pattern data determined through radio telemetry and fine scale data from snorkeling in this paper. It includes other species such as bull trout, large scale sucker, steelhead, and Chinook. This was the Phd work of Colden Baxter at Oregon State. Great study. and a great read. PM if you want to have a look at it. I have a pdf. Here is an excert regarding large scale whitefish movements in the Wenaha, Grande Ronde, Snake River system (Quite amazing little fish with herkin snoots):
From C. Baxter. 2002 . Title: Fish Movement and Assemblage Dynamics in a Pacific
Northwest Riverscape. PhD thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
3.3.1 Seasonal, Large-scale Movements: Mountain Whitefish
Seasonal migrations by radio-tagged adult mountain whitefish were perhaps the most
complex of the three species tracked. Annual home range size varied dramatically among
tagged adult mountain whitefish (Figure 32), ranging from 0.2 to 190 km, with an
average of 61.4 km (SD = 62.2). Sizes of the 25 fish tagged were fairly consistent,
averaging 39.7 cm (SD = 3.6). I observed no significant association between fish size
and the total distance moved by a fish, nor was size correlated with any other aspect of
whitefish movement (Pearson’ s correlation, P > 0.05). In addition, there was no
association between the distance moved by a fish or suspected mortalities and any factor
associated with capture or tagging surgery (e.g., duration or quality of surgery).
The behavior of tagged mountain whitefish appeared to reflect five different types
of seasonal behavior. The first two types remained in the Wenaha River throughout the
year (Figure 33). Two fish that were tagged in the lower Wenaha River (rkm 10.9)
moved very little, remaining in a single reach throughout the entire year. Four fish that
were tagged in the upper reaches (rkm 23-33) also stayed in the Wenaha, but exhibited a
pronounced seasonal migration (avg. annual range = 10.6 km). All four of these fish
remained in the reaches where they were captured until September, when they moved
downstream 3-10 km to over-winter in the reach near the confluence of Butte Creek. The
following spring (April-June), each of these fish moved back upstream to the same
reaches (and in two cases the same channel unit) they had occupied the previous summer.
Most of the radio-tagged mountain whitefish (16) spent part of the year outside the
Wenaha drainage, and of these there were three distinct types. The first group (Figure
34) consisted of 4 fish that were tagged in the upper Wenaha between rkm 23 and 35,
spent the summer in these reaches, and then made a rapid downstream migration of 25-54
km to the Grande Ronde River in October or early November. These fish spent the
winter months in the Grande Ronde and exhibited little movement (< 0.5 km) during this
time. However, in March and April, all four of these individuals made the return
migration to the same reaches (three of them to the exact channel unit) of the upper
Wenaha River they had occupied during the previous summer.
The second group of fish that left the Wenaha drainage (Figure 34) consisted of 9 fish
that were tagged in the mid to lower reaches of the Wenaha. Following their tagging in
June and early July, these fish either 1) spent the summer in the reach where they were
tagged (4 fish), 2) dropped downstream slightly (0.5-1.0 km) and held for the summer (2
fish), 3) moved up-river during July and August (2 fish), or 4) moved 100-200 m into the
lower reaches of a nearby tributary in July owinter in the Hell’ s Canyon reach, and one fish migrated 95 km down the Wenaha and up the
Grande Ronde River to over-winter near the confluence of the Wallowa River. These fish also
exhibited little movement (< 0.5 km) during the winter months, but starting in March or April,
began a migration back to the Wenaha River. This migration was more gradual than the other
group’ s, and these fish (including the 2 that migrated only short distances from the Wenaha) did
not actually re-enter the Wenaha River until late May, June, or even early July. Though tracking
during June and July 2000 was limited to aerial surveys that allow only reach-scale spatial
resolution, it appeared that at least 6 of these 10 fish had returned to the reaches where they were
found the previous summer.
The third group of fish that left the Wenaha drainage consisted of two fish (Figure 33) that
were tagged in the lower Wenaha, spent the summer in the reach in which they had been
captured, and then migrated into the Grande Ronde during September or October. Though these
fish were confirmed (via observations of small-scale diel movements) to be living in March
2000, they had not undertaken any significant movement when we ceased tracking in July 2000.
Finally, of the remaining 4 mountain whitefish we tagged, an angler captured 1 in the lower
Wenaha just weeks after tagging. The other 3 dropped downstream after tagging and remained
in a single location throughout the year. After several unsuccessful attempts to view them
underwater and/or detect movement, I presumed that these three fish had either died or their tags
had been shed. Other than these, we were able to confirm the live status (through underwater
observation or tracking of diel movements) of all of our tagged mountain whitefish. In numerous
instances, we observed active feeding by our tagged fish. In several cases we were able to make
close observations of the surgery wound site on fish, and always found that the fish appeared to
have healed well.