21, rue d’Artois, F-75008 PARIS C3 - 102 CIGRE 2018

http : //www.cigre.org

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF FISH DEATH AT BRAZILIAN

HYDROPOWER PLANTS

R.C.LOURES* I.G.PRADO F.ANDRADE A.C.L.RÊGO A.L.GODINHO

Cemig GT UFMG UFLA UFMG UFMG
Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil

SUMMARY

Brazilian rivers are home to an enormous diversity of fish and have great potential for hydropower
generation. However, hydropower generation is one of the most impactful human activities for riverine
fishes. Many fish species agglomerate immediately downstream of hydropower plants (HPs),
particularly in the tailrace, increasing their risk of being killed by operational procedures, mainly turbine
startup and dewatering. To reduce fish kills at HPs, Cemig and the Federal University of Minas Gerais
developed a methodology for fish death assessment and mitigation, which reduced the annual biomass
of dead fish by 70.1%. As a consequence, Cemig reduced financial losses due to fines by 97.7%.
Moreover, there has been no turbine interdiction by environmental agencies since 2007, a common
penalty for HPs that kill fish. Other important results from 10 years of study are summarized. Regression
models were developed for two HPs to predict fish biomass and abundance trapped in the draft tube
during turbine dewatering using fish catch data from the tailrace and turbine discharge just before
dewatering. Guided by these models, various turbine dewaterings were postponed due to prediction of
great biomass. The divert fish operation, an operational procedure commonly used throughout the
country to reduce the amount of fish trapped in the turbine during dewatering, showed to be ineffective
at Três Marias Dam and maybe ineffective at Amador Aguiar II Dam as well. The use of screens at the
draft tube exit of Três Marias Dam, to prevent fish from entering the turbine, effectively reduced biomass
of dead/moribund fish due to turbine startup. Without screens, 32% of turbine startups produced
dead/moribund fish, with biomass ranging from 1 to 120 kg per startup. With screens, only 5% of the
turbine startups produced dead/moribund fish, and the biomass was always lower than 8 kg per startup.
Improvements in fish screen deployment resulted in no dead/moribund fish over the past two years. The
company-university partnership has proven to be a successful way to address challenges regarding fish
mortality. It was also the basis for constructive solutions, new operational rules, and planning/executing
turbine operations in association with risk assessment of fish death.

KEYWORDS

Hydropower impact – Ichthyofauna - Fish death - Operational procedure – Environmental impact –

Tailrace

*raquel.fontes@cemig.com.br
1. INTRODUCTION

River fish die from a wide variety of causes, both natural (e.g., infectious diseases, parasitic infestations,
oxygen depletion, increased temperature, and toxic algal blooms) and anthropic (e.g., pollution,
contamination by toxic substances, and the operation of hydropower plants) [1]. The causes of fish death
can, and should, be determined so that corrective measures can be taken to prevent future losses [2].
Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine the cause(s) of such events, but careful observation, accurate
data collection and appropriate sampling procedures are certainly a necessity [1].

Brazilian rivers have great potential for hydropower generation, and currently account for 61% of the
electricity matrix in the country. There are 1,311 hydropower plants (HPs) in Brazil. However,
hydropower generation is one of the most impactful human activities for fishes. Many species of fish
agglomerate near hydropower plants, particularly in the tailrace (Figure 1). Fish move upstream and
downstream between different habitats used for spawning, nursery, refuge, and feeding [3]. When fish
encounter a dam while moving upstream, they may remain near the dam for days, weeks, months or
even years, giving rise to agglomerations. This behaviour increases their risk of being killed by an
operational procedure of the dam, mainly turbine startup and dewatering. Tailrace fish, sometimes in
the tons, enter into the draft tube when a turbine stops running (Figure 1). These fish may die by
mechanical shock or decompression at startup. During turbine dewatering, fish trapped in the draft tube
may perish if not rescued, which is a complex and time-consuming process. The risk for fish death
increases with the number of fish trapped in the draft tube.

The reduction of fish death by hydropower plants is a major challenge for hydropower companies due
to the mega diversity of fish species in Brazilian rivers and their different behaviours.

Figure 1: Fish agglomeration at the tailrace of Três Marias Dam, São Francisco River, Brazil (left), and schematic
longitudinal section of a hydropower plant with fish trapped in the hydraulic circuit of the turbine (right). Images
[4].

2. METHODOLOGY FOR FISH DEATH ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

To reduce fish death at their HPs, Cemig, a large Brazilian group in the electric energy sector, launched
the Peixe Vivo Program in 2007. The guidelines and objectives of the Program were defined together
with the help of scientists, fish biologists, anglers, members of civil society, and governmental and non-
governmental organizations. One of its priorities was to develop a methodology for assessing the risk of
fish death at the company’s HPs, and to take actions to mitigate and prevent fish death during energy
generation. Thus, a partnership was established with Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) in
2008 to develop a project aiming to: (i) identify and understand risky operational procedures for fish,
(ii) propose measures and solutions to reduce fish death, and (iii) assess the effectiveness of the measures
and solutions proposed.

2
In order to address these objectives, the Risk Assessment of Fish Death (RAFID) methodology was
developed for the operation and maintenance of Cemig’s HPs. The Cemig Group, which includes wholly
owned subsidiaries and associated companies, is the fifth largest power generator in Brazil with 82 HPs,
18 wind farms, and 1 thermopower plant in operation, totalling 6.56 GW of installed capacity, almost
all of which is located in the state of Minas Gerais. Due to the large number of HPs, and their location
in almost all of the state’s watersheds, RAFID was created following five steps, which established
criteria for prioritizing the inclusion of HPs in the study: (i) analysis of historical data on fish death at
Cemig’s HPs; (ii) classification of each HP according to its potential risk of fish death; (iii)
implementation of a specific service instruction that foresees systematic planning of operational
procedures that considers engineering, environmental, and biological aspects in order to prevent fish
death; (iv) establishment of standardized fish monitoring by fish biologists prior to the execution of
operational procedures risky to fish; and (v) creation of a strategic indicator, named ‘affected biomass’
(AB), for both periodic audits and monitoring of compliance performance of the measures applied to
avoid fish death.

Table I: Steps in creating the Risk Assessment of Fish Death (RAFID) methodology in the operation and
maintenance of hydropower plants.
Step Description
1 Analysis of historical series data on the occurrence of fish deaths: records of fish death
from 2001 to 2007 were analysed considering information on hydropower plant, date,
species, quantity of dead fish biomass (affected biomass), and probable cause of occurrence.
These data were used to determine the operational procedures of hydropower plants that
caused the most fish deaths, the plants with the highest number of occurrences, the period
of the year with the greatest frequency of occurrence, and the fish species most affected (see
[5] for descriptions of the operational procedures).
2 Categorization of hydropower plants: based on Step 1, the hydropower plants of Cemig
were classified according to their degree of risk to fish. Thus, values from A to D were
assigned to the plants, with “A” indicating plants with the highest risk, and “D” indicating
those with the lowest risk (Figure 2) [6].
3 Implementation of a service instruction: the next step was to create and implement a
specific service instruction (SI), entitled “SI-47: Ichthyofauna Protection During Operation
and Maintenance of Hydropower Plants”. Its main objective was to define the precautions
to be taken for fish protection during the operational procedures of hydropower plants of the
Cemig Group. This instruction came into effect in October 2007, and guides the operation,
maintenance, and environmental teams while carrying out their activities during operational
procedures with risk to fish, according to the categories described in Step 2. For each of the
categories of risk established in Step 2, specific actions were proposed for risk assessment
and impact mitigation according to the potential for an environmental occurrence and the
operational procedure being performed.
4 Establishment of standardized fish monitoring: SI-47 states that fish monitoring (called
prior monitoring) needs to be performed in order to assess the risks to fish prior to carrying
out any operational procedure. Therefore, the methodology of this monitoring was
developed under the assumption that the risk of fish death during an operational procedure
is proportional to the amount of fish immediately downstream from the HP just before the
procedure. The methodology was standardized for each hydropower plant to allow
comparisons to be made overtime. However, the particularities of each plant were
considered, respecting logistic limitations and, especially, the safety of the team near
hazardous areas. In addition to prior monitoring, periodic monitoring was also established
at each hydropower plant using the same methodology. The purpose of periodic monitoring
was to obtain sufficient samples so that other aspects of the biology of fish downstream from
the hydropower plants could be investigated.
5 Creation of a strategic indicator: this step involved the creation of the indicator called ‘affected
biomass’ (AB), which corresponds to the sum of dead fish biomass (in kg) produced by the
operation and maintenance of a given hydropower plant. This indicator is subject to periodic
audits and allows the results to be assessed relative to goals and monitoring compliance.

3
Figure 2: Hydropower plants of Cemig in Minas Gerais State, categorized according to risk of fish death [6].

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Fish death reduction

After 10 years using the RAFID, 351 operational procedures were monitored and supervised by the
project team to ensure the implementation of the fish protection actions provided by the SI-47. The AB
indicator showed that mean annual fish death was reduced 70.1%. The main reason for this reduction
was the implementation of actions for fish protection during the planning and execution of turbine
maintenance in conjunction with Cemig’s engineering team provided by the SI-47. Therefore, Cemig
reduced financial losses due to fines by 97.7%. Moreover, there have been no turbine interdictions by
environmental agencies, a common penalty for HPs that kill fish, since 2007. Less fish kills also
promoted a positive image for the company. Understanding how fish were killed was critical to the
reduction of AB.

From 2001 to 2007, the operational procedures that affected fish the most among the Cemig’s HPs were
turbine dewatering and startup. These procedures were responsible for 53.2% and 20.7% of all AB
during the period, respectively. Ten years after the establishment of RAFID and the implementation of
protective actions for fish, the scenario changed. The AB from turbine dewatering decreased to nearly
zero, placing it at seventh place among the operational procedures with the greatest risk for fish death
(Figure 3). Turbine startup moved to first place with 36.0% of the AB, followed by normal operation
with 26.1%. The implementation of more effective environmental safety actions for these two causes of
fish death are still a challenge for the Cemig Group, which continues work to minimize fish deaths in
the operation of its HPs [2].

4
Figure 3: Causes of fish death at hydropower plants of Cemig before and after the implementation of the Risk
Assessment of Fish Death methodology.

3.2. Predicting trapped fish biomass and abundance

The trapped biomass of mandi (Pimelodus maculatus, Siluriformes) in the draft tube during dewatering
was modelled for Três Marias Dam (TMD), São Francisco River basin, and Amador Aguiar II Dam
(ASD), Paranaíba River basin. Since fish trapped in the draft tube are mainly from the tailrace, it was
hypothesized that the biomass of fish trapped inside this structure would be a function of the abundance
of fish in the tailrace immediately before the stop logs seal the draft tube. By using cast nets (TMD) [7]
and gillnets (ASD) [5], fish capture in tailrace was quantified prior to turbine dewatering in order to
quantify tailrace fish abundance.

For TMD, the response variable trapped fish biomass did not meet normality, so a Generalized Linear
Model (GLM) was used. Gamma distribution, an alternative to non-normal continuous data [8], was
chosen after fit with the “fitdistrplus” package [9] from R-Studio [10]. The link function “log” was the
most appropriate since it provided the minimum residual deviance [11]. Gamma distribution only allows
for values larger than zero, so 1 kg was added to all entries of trapped fish biomass in the dataset. For
TMD, a second explanatory variable was included in the model: the turbine load just before stoppage
to deploy the stop logs. This variable is a surrogate for the turbine discharge already modelled for the
response variable [7]. The higher the turbine load, the higher its discharge and consequently, the greater
the difficulty for fish to enter the draft tube.

The three possible models with tailrace fish abundance and turbine load were compared based on
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values for model selection. Collinearity between the two
explanatory variables was discarded after a Spearman’s correlation test (rs = 0.14, P = 0.58). The
percentage of explained variance was calculated by pseudo-R2 [8].

The three models, generated using data from 18 turbine dewaterings at TMD, are summarized in Table
II. The model with two explanatory variables turned out to be the best. Besides having the lowest AIC
value and highest pseudo-R2, it was the only significant model. In this model, turbine load had a negative
effect on trapped fish biomass, while tailrace fish abundance had a positive effect on the response
variable. Predicted values of trapped fish biomass were highly correlated with observed values (r = 0.84,
P < 0.0001; Figure 4).

The effects of the two explanatory variables on trapped fish biomass have been previously reported for
TMD [7]. However, two models, one for each explanatory variable, were used by [7] due to the low
number of samples (N = 9). Using the data from [7] and subsequent samples, the present study confirmed
the effects of both explanatory variables on trapped fish biomass when in the same model.

To predict the biomass of mandi that will be trapped in the draft tube of TMD prior turbine dewatering,
the following equation should be used: trapped fish biomass = exp (3.79 - 0.01 turbine load + 0.32

5
tailrace fish abundance). When the predicted trapped fish biomass is large, the dewatering should be
cancelled or the HP should be prepared for rescuing a large biomass of fish.

For ASD, the response variable trapped fish abundance was normalized after logarithmic transformation
and a simple linear regression was applied. Nine turbine dewaterings were evaluated and the prediction
model for ASD (Figure 5) was significant. The equation obtained was ln N = 5.666 + 0.552* ln(CPUE
+ 1) (r2 = 0.60; P = 0.01), where N = number of mandi trapped in the draft tube and CPUE = capture
per unit effort for mandi in the tailrace.

Table II: Gamma GLM results for three models generated for Três Marias Dam from turbine load and tailrace
fish abundance as predictors of trapped fish biomass in the draft tube. Bold values are statistically significant (α <
0.05).
Model Parameter Estimate AIC pseudo-R2 P
Intercept 3.79 < 0.001
1 0.01
Turbine load -0.01 167.31 0.38
(best)
Tailrace fish abundance 0.32 0.02
Intercept 4.38 < 0.001
2 186.73 0.13
Turbine load -0.01 0.05
Intercept 3.29 < 0.001
3 177.01 0.18
Tailrace fish abundance 0.30 0.07

Figure 4: Observed versus predicted trapped biomass in the draft tube of Três Marias Dam during turbine
dewatering. The line is not the regression line, but a line representing equal predicted and observed values.

6
Figure 5: Number of mandi trapped during turbine dewaterings of Amador Aguiar II Dam (ln N) and the capture
per unit effort (CPUE) of mandi in the tailrace.

The development of an equation that uses the abundance of mandi in the tailrace to predict the biomass
of trapped mandi during a turbine dewatering is a significant advance for the mitigation of impacts
caused by hydropower plants [7]. By predicting the biomass of trapped mandi before a dewatering it is
possible to predict the risk of fish death associated with the dewatering because the higher the trapped
biomass the higher the risk of mandi death. Therefore, this tool is essential for making decisions on
whether to undertake a dewatering or not, and for determining the adequate supply of materials and
people for executing the procedure. The development of such predictive models should be considered
for other HPs [5].

3.3. The divert fish operation

The divert fish operation is widely used in Brazil to reduce the amount of fish trapped in the draft tube
during turbine dewatering. It consists of spilling water and/or shutting down the turbines adjacent to the
one to be dewatered. Despite never having been tested, this operation assumes that the tailrace fish
would move towards the spillway and/or to the adjacent turbines, and thus away from the turbine that
needs maintenance.

Two experiments were conducted at ASD to evaluate the divert fish operation [12]. In the first
experiment, CPUE of mandi in the area adjacent to the tailrace and in the spillway plunge pool area
prior to spillway discharge were compared to their respective CPUE afterwards to test whether the
abundance of mandi in the tailrace decreases and that in the spillway plunge pool increases. Five fish
sampling campaigns using gillnets was performed. In each campaign, one battery of gillnets with
stretched mesh of 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 cm, about 1.7 m in height and 10 m (mesh size of 3 and 4 cm) or 20
m (others) in length was used in each sampling phase (before and after spillway discharge) and at each
sampling site (area adjacent to the tailrace and spillway). The nets were set late in the afternoon of one
day and removed the following morning. All fish caught were identified and counted. The t-test for
paired samples was used to determine differences in the number of mandi collected in the area adjacent
to the tailrace and spillway before and after spillway discharge. There was no significant difference
before and after spillway discharge in the mean number of mandi captured in both the area adjacent to
the tailrace (t = 0.78; P = 0.48) and the spillway (t = -2.41; P = 0.07; Figure 6).

7
A B

Figure 6: Boxplot (mean, standard error, and range) of the number of mandi (P. maculatus) captured in the area
adjacent to the tailrace (A) and spillway plunge pool area (B) of Amador Aguiar II Dam before and after spillway
discharge.

The second experiment evaluated whether spillway discharge reduces the amount of mandi trapped
during turbine dewatering by comparing the number of mandi trapped in dewaterings with and without
spillway discharge. Thereunto, the number of mandi trapped in the draft tube during two dewaterings
with adjacent turbine stop, but without spillway discharge, was determined. During dewatering, the
mandi trapped in the draft tube were collected with dip and seine nets and put in buckets. Systematic
sampling was used to determine the number of mandi in one of every three buckets of fish collected
from the draft tube. The number of mandi recovered in the draft tube was compared with the number of
trapped mandi predicted by the equation lnY = 5.666 + 0.552 ln(X + 1) (r2 = 0.60), where Y is the
number of mandi trapped in the draft tube and X is the catch per unit effort (CPUE) of mandi in the
tailrace on the eve of the turbine dewatering, as previously described. This equation comes from
dewatering with spillway discharge and adjacent turbine stop.

The estimated number of mandi recovered in the two turbine dewaterings without spillway discharge
was 13,352 and 6,294. The CPUE of mandi in the tailrace on the eve of dewatering was 19.7 and 13.0
individuals/100m² of net, respectively. These CPUEs, applied to the prediction equation, generated a
predicted number of trapped mandi of 1,537 and 1,239. Thus, the number of mandi actually trapped
was, respectively, 8.5 and 4.9 times greater than the number of mandi predicted by the equation and
above the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the regression.

The study is not entirely conclusive as to the supposed benefit of the divert fish operation. It suggests
that spillway discharge may not attract mandi from the tailrace to the region of the spillway (first
experiment), but may reduce the number of mandi trapped in the turbine (second experiment). More
sampling and the use of other methodologies, such as echo sounding and biotelemetry, are necessary to
reduce or eliminate the uncertainties generated by a small number of replicates and limitations of the
sampling method used [12]. At TMD, an experiment similar to the first at ASD was conducted and
concluded that the use of spillage attracted more fish to the tailrace region instead of diverting them
away, and thus is no longer used, as shown in [7].

3.4. Fish screens

During normal operation of a hydropower plant, one or more turbines may need to be stopped for
maintenance or due to operational convenience. Tailrace fish may enter their draft tube and suffer
injuries during startup by hitting the turbine blades or the walls of the draft tube. Physical barriers, such

8
as screens, prevent fish from entering the draft tube after turbine stoppage. These screens can be operated
manually with a crane, or automatically using motors and sensors. At TMD, two 6 × 4 m screens with a
1 cm2 mesh were deployed immediately after the turbine stoppage [7]. The screens started to be used in
July 2007. Between July of 2007 and May of 2015, the screens were manually deployed. After May of
2015, the deployment became automatic.

To determine if the screens were able to reduce fish death by turbine startup at TMD, dead or moribund
fish on the water surface, for about 500 m downstream of the powerhouse, were collected after each of
763 turbine startups (159 without screen, 226 with manual screens, and 378 with automatic screens).
The biomass of dead/moribund fish was compared among startups without screens, startups with manual
screens, and startups with automated screens.

The time to deploy the manual screens after turbine stoppage ranged from 40 to 90 sec, whereas that for
the automated screens was always less than 55 sec. Without the screens, biomass of dead/moribund fish
after startups ranged 0–120 kg. Greater than 50 kg of biomass of dead/moribund fish was collected after
2% of the startups, while between 10 and 50 kg was collected after 13%. With the manual screens, the
biomass of dead/moribund fish ranged 0–8 kg. With the automatic screens, no biomass of
dead/moribund fish was collected after the turbine startups. Biomass of dead/moribund fish equal to 0
occurred after 100% of the turbine startups with automatic screens, after 95% of those with manual
screens, and after 65% of the startups without screens. Biomass of dead/moribund fish greater than 10
kg only occurred after startups without the screens (Figure 7).

The screens effectively reduced fish death during turbine startups at TMD. The automated screens were
even more effective at reducing the biomass of dead/moribund fish than the manual screens. It is likely
that screens will be effective in reducing fish deaths at other hydropower plants. However, it is important
to periodically inspect screens. Furthermore, using screens for a long period of time is not recommend
because fish that may have been trapped can suffer from starvation, stress, and physical injury inside
the draft tube even with good water conditions [13].

Figure 7: Percentage of the number of turbine startups per biomass class of dead/moribund fish after startups
without screens (n = 159), with manual screens (n = 226), and with automatic screens (n = 378) at Três Marias
Dam.

4. CONCLUSIONS

To improve environmental safety during the operation of HPs, it is crucial to understand how fish are
affected so mitigation actions can be implemented. Such understanding will only be achieved with the
development of specific studies. In addition to assuring fish conservation, the protection of fish will help

9
reduce monetary losses by companies in the hydropower sector due to fines and temporary interdiction
in power generation as a result of fish deaths. The company-university partnership has proven to be a
successful way to address these challenges. It was also the basis for constructive solutions, new
operational rules, and planning/executing turbine operations associated with risk assessment of fish
death. The creation of a strategic indicator increased the motivation of the different professionals
involved in the process of power generation, from those responsible for planning operational procedures
to those who executed them, to reduce impacts to fish.

Fish death in the Brazilian hydropower sector is not an easy issue to address. It is still treated as classified
information. We believe that it will only be possible to advance towards solutions for reducing fish death
and establish more fish-friendly operational procedures by studying and discussing the subject broadly.
Despite all the advances already made, challenges to reduce fish death at HPs remain, and will continue
to be a major issue in the long term.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] F. P. Meyer and L. A. Barclay, "Field manual for the investigation of fish kills." (Washington,
D. C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990).
[2] A. L. Godinho and R. C. Loures, “Risk of fih death at Brazilian hydropower plants,” in "Risk
assessment of fih death at hydropower plants in southeastern Brazil", R. C. Loures and A. L.
Godinho, Eds. (Belo Horizonte: Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais, 2017, pp. 19–36).
[3] A. L. Godinho and B. Kynard, “Migratory fishes of Brazil : life history and fish passage
needs,” (River Research and Applications, vol 25, pp. 702–712, 2009).
[4] R. C. Loures and A. L. Godinho, "Risk assessment of fih death at hydropower plants in
southeastern Brazil." (Belo Horizonte: Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais, 332p. 2017).
[5] A. C. L. Rego et al., “Fish affcted by operational procedures of hydropower plants in
southeastern Brazil,” in "Risk assessment of fih death at hydropower plants in southeastern
Brazil", R. C. Loures and A. L. Godinho, Eds. (Belo Horizonte: Companhia Energética de
Minas Gerais, 2017, pp. 71–96).
[6] R. C. Loures et al., “Methodology for risk assessment of fih death at hydropower plants,” in
"Risk assessment of fih death at hydropower plants in southeastern Brazil". (Belo Horizonte:
Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais, 2017, pp. 37 – 70).
[7] F. de Andrade, I. G. Prado, and R. C. Loures, “Evaluation of techniques used to protect tailrace
fishes during turbine maneuvers at Três Marias Dam, Brazil,” (Neotrop. Ichthyol., vol. 10, no.
4, pp. 723–730, Oct. 2012).
[8] A. F. Zuur, E. N. Ieno, N. Walker, A. a. Saveliev, and G. M. Smith, "Mixed effects models and
extensions in ecology with R. New York". (NY: Springer New York, 2009).
[9] M. L. Delignette-Muller and C. Dutang, “‘fitdistrplus’: An R Package for Fitting
Distributions”. (J. Stat. Softw., vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 1–34, 2015).
[10] R Development Core Team, “RStudio | Open source and enterprise-ready professional software
for R.” (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2016).
[11] M. J. Crawley, "The R Book". (2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013).
[12] A. C. L. Rego, T. T. Silva, and A. L. Godinho, “Does spillway discharge reduce the amount of
fih trapped in the turbine of the Amador Aguiar II Dam during dewatering?,” in "Risk
assessment of fih death at hydropower plants in southeastern Brazil", R. C. Loures and A. L.
Godinho, Eds. (Belo Horizonte: Companhia Energética de Minas Gerai, 2017, pp. 199–208).
[13] R. C. Loures, N. J. S. Prado, R. J. da Silva, I. Joncew, J. de S. Dias, and E. G. G. Pontelo,
“Recommendations for fih protection at new hydropower plant projects,” in "Risk assessment
of fih death at hydropower plants in southeastern Brazil", R. C. Loures and A. L. Godinho, Eds.
(Belo Horizonte: Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais, 2017, pp. 273–294).

10