OK, first things first, and I'm going to put this in bold capitals not because I'm shouting at you but because it's something everything should remember at all times, so it's worth emphasising:
RIVERS DO NOT WORK LIKE THAT.
You've fallen into... well, it doesn't have a name, but let's call it "fantasy river disorder". Nobody knows why it is, but almost everyone who first comes to draw a map of a fantasy world gets the rivers completely wrong, and in the same way each time.
Let's take the rivers one by one:
- the big 'Greenblight' river is the most problematic, because it violates the fundamental law of rivers: rivers do not divide. Rivers join together, but they do not split apart. They only split apart when they are travelling slowly over very flat land - mostly only in deltas, and sometimes on a smaller scale in meandering river valleys. When they do split like that, they split A LOT, so you get complex 'braiding' of channels, and the splits are very temporary, with the channels moving over the course of years and decades. What they don't do is branch neatly in two, and what they never do is branch when they're fast-flowing big rivers far from the sea (ok, occasionally there's a hard-to-erode rock that turns into a little eyot in the middle of the river, but...).
Your Greenblight comes down from a mountain and instantly splits in two - it can't do that. The long branch then travels a long way, then splits in two again, then again, then again. Maybe you could get away with the final split, saying that actually that's an island in an ocean estuary, and not a branch in the river. But the other splits are impossible.
Why can't rivers branch? Basically, because water finds the fastest route to the sea. If you give water two routes to the sea, it'll all travel down the faster route (except in floods, and even then enough floods will carve a new single route over time). Given that the sea is approximately the same level everywhere, and the start point is obviously at the same level as itself, "the quickest route" just equates to "the shortest route" (although technically "the quickest route" actually means "the steepest route"). Water will only travel down two routes if they're exactly the same length, and hence exactly the same gradient. In practice, the odds against this happening are astronomical. So what would actually happen is that once the Greenblight forms its short route to the sea in that great bay, all the water will pass that way, and none will pass through the longer route.
[Exactly the same is true of electicity - lightning, for instance, finds the route of least resistence to the ground, and circuits are 'earthed' (given an easy route to the ground) so that surges do not pass through other routes, like through people.]
- the big river travelling south from Mt Green. This is not impossible, but it looks very unlikely, for two reasons.
First, lakes. That river is filled with lakes - it looks almost to be one big lake. That doesn't happen. Lakes form when water can enter more quickly than it can leave, so they're associated with areas of slow water movement - either flat floodplains near coasts (when they're common but few) or rugged mountain areas (or flat, post-glacial areas where you get countless small lakes because the glaciers have recently screwed up the topography and it hasn't sorted itself out yet). Lakes are normally near the head of rivers, not along their length. If there are large lakes along the length*, then they must occupy their own basins, which means they're unlikely to be that sort of long, sinuous shape.
Second, the way topography usually works is that if you stand at the mouth of a river, it's uphill in all directions - in other words, the land is draped over the mountains. But your big river seems to have several rivers that join 'in the wrong direction' - traveling 'uphill' before joining the river. That means that in many places it must be lower inland and higher nearer the coast, which is possible, but rare.
Third, that solo lake seems to empty into the river by travelling INTO THE MOUNTAINS to join the river. That can happen but it's really, really rare! Instead, that lake would simply empty into the bay that's so close by.
- this happens again with the river north of 'blight's edge mountain': the river crosses a mountain range to get to the sea. This is less impossible, because that lake is at least inland (there's no very easy way to get to the sea). But even so, rivers almost never cross mountain ranges. The only time that happens is when a very young mountain range has risen up 'around' an old, very big river, and the river has simply held its level as the land around rises up - this happens a few times near the Himalaya. It used to happen with the Amazon, which flowed from east to west, and for a while flowed through the Andes - but as the Andes continued to rise, eventually the Amazon reversed its course to its current west-to-east alignment.
- the river in the southwest: very unlikely. Again, water finds the quickest way to the sea. Therefore, it only rarely travels parallel to the sea for any length of time - you're basically saying there's a big range of hills between the river and the sea - really tall ones, because otherwise the river would indeed cut through it. That's unusual (though see California for an example). We've covered how its early branch is impossible - if the water can get out that quickly, it won't go the long way around. It then branches again to form 'red lake' and its multiple routes to the sea.
Now, I don't expect everyone to make their worlds fully in accordance with climatological and tectonic and hydrological models. But these are really obvious errors to anyone who's seen how rivers work in the real world, so a little revision would make the map a lot more believable.
[Of course, then there are other questions like 'how can it be desert at almost the same latitude as your big green area, given that it's closer to the sea', and 'how can there be a green area inland of the desert? where does that water come from?', but those are easier to handwave.]
Since it's fallen to me to be pedantic, I'd also comment:
- it's confusing to use a peck (normally a measurement of volume) as a measurement of distance. Why not use a made-up word instead, to avoid those connotations? Or, indeed, why not use something like 'mile' or 'league', which are recognisably distance terms, but the length of which has varied wildly? Your 'peck' could specifically be re-described as a quarter-league, which already has a great deal of ambiguity in it, while retaining units people recognise at least the name and concept of.
[a league is traditionally the distance walked in one hour. but of course, that varies - who's walking? what are they carrying? Your league could be the distance walked by a trained scout in an hour, and could be four miles, or it could be the distance walked by a farmer carrying a bushel of firewood, and be two miles. Or anything in between.]
- the fewer big 'powers', the more war there'll be - local wars are bloodier and more frequent than world wars. And note that we didn't have 'global wars' until pretty much the last 100 years, so you could easily be describing the middle ages there.
- a world without any major powers probably has no major settlements. Remember, outside of empires and industrialism, most human settlements are tiny - rather than a couple of major settlements on a continent, you'd have countless small settlements all over the place.
- Your approach to races is a matter of taste, of course... but personally I find it distasteful. One the one hand, giving black people or the japanese monkey ears or cat-tails seems to be unnecessarily othering them - aren't humans distinct enough without having to overtly mark "races" with more obvious physical characteristics? In humans, race is essentially a social construct**, but if different races really do have tusks, horns, tails, etc, then you seem to be reinforcing racialist conceptions. On the other hand, what's wrong with fantasy races from the point of view of diversity? How does turning "elves" into "humans that look like elves" increase "diversity"? Surely it decreases diversity, by making everyone more alike?
Basically, there are two common lines of attack against the 'fantasy race' idea. One is that by making other races into other species, fantasy races excessively alienise the other - pretending that different races are fundamentally different when in reality they're not. The other is almost the direct opposite: that by making these theoretically alien races into thinly disguised humans, fantasy races narrow the scope of diversity and pass up the opportunity, unique to the genre, to encourage reader to empathise with the genuinely alien. But your approach seems to exacerbate BOTH problems at once!
ANYWAY. Please don't take this as rubbishing your suggestions. Please take it just as constructive criticism enjoining further research (on issues like rivers) or further consideration (on issues like race).
*the only really notable example of this is the Great Lakes
**skin tone is of course a physical feature. However, as well as being non-binary, skin tone is actually, genetically, an extremely superficial marker - it is a very inaccurate indicator of ancestry. [many white Americans in the South, for instance, will be more genetically related to African slaves than many black Americans are]