USGS - science for a changing world

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

  Home About NPWRC Our Science Staff Employment Contacts Common Questions About the Site

The Cranes

Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan

Appendix 3

IUCN Red List Categories


1) Introduction

1. The threatened species categories now used in Red Data Books and Red Lists have been in place, with some modification, for almost 30 years. Since their introduction these categories have become widely recognised internationally, and they are now used in a whole range of publications and listings, produced by IUCN as well as by numerous governmental and non-governmental organisations. The Red Data Book categories provide an easily and widely understood method for highlighting those species under higher extinction risk, so as to focus attention on conservation measures designed to protect them.

2. The need to revise the categories has been recognised for some time. In 1984, the SSC held a symposium, ‘The Road to Extinction’ (Fitter & Fitter 1987), which examined the issues in some detail, and at which a number of options were considered for the revised system. However, no single proposal resulted. The current phase of development began in 1989 with a request from the SSC Steering Committee to develop a new approach that would provide the conservation community with useful information for action planning.

In this document, proposals for new definitions for Red List categories are presented. The general aim of the new system is to provide an explicit, objective framework for the classification of species according to their extinction risk.

The revision has several specific aims:

3. The proposals presented in this document result from a continuing process of drafting, consultation and validation. It was clear that the production of a large number of draft proposals led to some confusion, especially as each draft has been used for classifying some set of species for conservation purposes. To clarify matters, and to open the way for modifications as and when they became necessary, a system for version numbering was applied as follows:

Version 1.0: Mace & Lande (1991)
The first paper discussing a new basis for the categories, and presenting numerical criteria especially relevant for large vertebrates.

Version 2.0: Mace et al. (1992)
A major revision of Version 1.0, including numerical criteria appropriate to all organisms and introducing the non-threatened categories.

Version 2.1: IUCN (1993)
Following an extensive consultation process within SSC, a number of changes were made to the details of the criteria, and fuller explanation of basic principles was included. A more explicit structure clarified the significance of the non-threatened categories.

Version 2.2: Mace & Stuart (1994)
Following further comments received and additional validation exercises, some minor changes to the criteria were made. In addition, the Susceptible category present in Versions 2.0 and 2.1 was subsumed into the Vulnerable category. A precautionary application of the system was emphasised.

Final Version
This final document, which incorporates changes as a result of comments from IUCN members, was adopted by the IUCN Council in December 1994.
All future taxon lists including categorisations should be based on this version, and not the previous ones.

4. In the rest of this document the proposed system is outlined in several sections. The Preamble presents some basic information about the context and structure of the proposal, and the procedures that are to be followed in applying the definitions to species. This is followed by a section giving definitions of terms used. Finally the definitions are presented, followed by the quantitative criteria used for classification within the threatened categories. It is important for the effective functioning of the new system that all sections are read and understood, and the guidelines followed.

References:

Fitter, R., and M. Fitter, ed. (1987)  The Road to Extinction.  Gland, 
     Switzerland: IUCN.

IUCN. (1993) Draft IUCN Red List Categories.  Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Mace, G. M. et al. (1992)  "The development of new criteria for listing species 
     on the IUCN Red List."  Species  19: 16-22.

Mace, G. M., and R. Lande. (1991)  "Assessing extinction threats: toward a 
     reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories."  Conserv. Biol.  
     5.2: 148-157.

Mace, G. M. & S. N. Stuart. (1994) "Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2". 
     Species 21-22: 13-24.

2) Preamble

The following points present important information on the use and interpretation of the categories (= Critically Endangered, Endangered, etc.), criteria (= A to E), and sub-criteria (= a,b etc., i,ii etc.):

1. Taxonomic level and scope of the categorisation process
The criteria can be applied to any taxonomic unit at or below the species level. The term ‘taxon’ in the following notes, definitions and criteria is used for convenience, and may represent species or lower taxonomic levels, including forms that are not yet formally described. There is a sufficient range among the different criteria to enable the appropriate listing of taxa from the complete taxonomic spectrum, with the exception of micro-organisms. The criteria may also be applied within any specified geographical or political area although in such cases special notice should be taken of point 11 below. In presenting the results of applying the criteria, the taxonomic unit and area under consideration should be made explicit. The categorisation process should only be applied to wild populations inside their natural range, and to populations resulting from benign introductions (defined in the draft IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions as “..an attempt to establish a species, for the purpose of conservation, outside its recorded distribution, but within an appropriate habitat and eco-geographical area”).

2. Nature of the categories
All taxa listed as Critically Endangered qualify for Vulnerable and Endangered, and all listed as Endangered qualify for Vulnerable. Together these categories are described as ‘threatened’. The threatened species categories form a part of the overall scheme. It will be possible to place all taxa into one of the categories (see Figure 1).

3. Role of the different criteria
For listing as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable there is a range of quantitative criteria; meeting any one of these criteria qualifies a taxon for listing at that level of threat. Each species should be evaluated against all the criteria. The different criteria (A-E) are derived from a wide review aimed at detecting risk factors across the broad range of organisms and the diverse life histories they exhibit. Even though some criteria will be inappropriate for certain taxa (some taxa will never qualify under these however close to extinction they come), there should be criteria appropriate for assessing threat levels for any taxon (other than micro-organisms). The relevant factor is whether any one criterion is met, not whether all are appropriate or all are met. Because it will never be clear which criteria are appropriate for a particular species in advance, each species should be evaluated against all the criteria, and any criterion met should be listed.

4. Derivation of quantitative criteria
The quantitative values presented in the various criteria associated with threatened categories were developed through wide consultation and they are set at what are generally judged to be appropriate levels, even if no formal justification for these values exists. The levels for different criteria within categories were set independently but against a common standard. Some broad consistency between them was sought. However, a given taxon should not be expected to meet all criteria (A-E) in a category; meeting any one criterion is sufficient for listing.

5. Implications of listing
Listing in the categories of Not Evaluated and Data Deficient indicates that no assessment of extinction risk has been made, though for different reasons. Until such time as an assessment is made, species listed in these categories should not be treated as if they were non-threatened, and it may be appropriate (especially for Data Deficient forms) to give them the same degree of protection as threatened taxa, at least until their status can be evaluated.
Extinction is assumed here to be a chance process. Thus, a listing in a higher extinction risk category implies a higher expectation of extinction, and over the time-frames specified more taxa listed in a higher category are expected to go extinct than in a lower one (without effective conservation action). However, the persistence of some taxa in high risk categories does not necessarily mean their initial assessment was inaccurate.

6. Data quality and the importance of inference and projection<
The criteria are clearly quantitative in nature. However, the absence of high quality data should not deter attempts at applying the criteria, as methods involving estimation, inference and projection are emphasised to be acceptable throughout. Inference and projection may be based on extrapolation of current or potential threats into the future (including their rate of change), or of factors related to population abundance or distribution (including dependence on other taxa), so long as these can reasonably be supported. Suspected or inferred patterns in either the recent past, present or near future can be based on any of a series of related factors, and these factors should be specified.
Taxa at risk from threats posed by future events of low probability but with severe consequences (catastrophes) should be identified by the criteria (e.g. small distributions, few locations). Some threats need to be identified particularly early, and appropriate actions taken, because their effects are irreversible, or nearly so (pathogens, invasive organisms, hybridization).

7. Uncertainty
The criteria should be applied on the basis of the available evidence on taxon numbers, trend and distribution, making due allowance for statistical and other uncertainties. Given that data are rarely available for the whole range or population of a taxon, it may often be appropriate to use the information that is available to make intelligent inferences about the overall status of the taxon in question. In cases where a wide variation in estimates is found, it is legitimate to apply the precautionary principle and use the estimate (providing it is credible) that leads to listing in the category of highest risk.
Where data are insufficient to assign a category (including Lower Risk), the category of ‘Data Deficient’ may be assigned. However, it is important to recognise that this category indicates that data are inadequate to determine the degree of threat faced by a taxon, not necessarily that the taxon is poorly known. In cases where there are evident threats to a taxon through, for example, deterioration of its only known habitat, it is important to attempt threatened listing, even though there may be little direct information on the biological status of the taxon itself. The category ‘Data Deficient’ is not a threatened category, although it indicates a need to obtain more information on a taxon to determine the appropriate listing.

8. Conservation actions in the listing process
The criteria for the threatened categories are to be applied to a taxon whatever the level of conservation action affecting it. In cases where it is only conservation action that prevents the taxon from meeting the threatened criteria, the designation of ‘Conservation Dependent’ is appropriate. It is important to emphasise here that a taxon may require conservation action even if it is not listed as threatened.

9. Documentation
All taxon lists including categorisation resulting from these criteria should state the criteria and sub-criteria that were met. No listing can be accepted as valid unless at least one criterion is given. If more than one criterion or sub-criterion was met, then each should be listed. However, failure to mention a criterion should not necessarily imply that it was not met. Therefore, if a re-evaluation indicates that the documented criterion is no longer met, this should not result in automatic down-listing. Instead, the taxon should be re- evaluated with respect to all criteria to indicate its status. The factors responsible for triggering the criteria, especially where inference and projection are used, should at least be logged by the evaluator, even if they cannot be included in published lists.

10. Threats and priorities
The category of threat is not necessarily sufficient to determine priorities for conservation action. The category of threat simply provides an assessment of the likelihood of extinction under current circumstances, whereas a system for assessing priorities for action will include numerous other factors concerning conservation action such as costs, logistics, chances of success, and even perhaps the taxonomic distinctiveness of the subject.

11. Use at regional level
The criteria are most appropriately applied to whole taxa at a global scale, rather than to those units defined by regional or national boundaries. Regionally or nationally based threat categories, which are aimed at including taxa that are threatened at regional or national levels (but not necessarily throughout their global ranges), are best used with two key pieces of information: the global status category for the taxon, and the proportion of the global population or range that occurs within the region or nation. However, if applied at regional or national level it must be recognised that a global category of threat may not be the same as a regional or national category for a particular taxon. For example, taxa classified as Vulnerable on the basis of their global declines in numbers or range might be Lower Risk within a particular region where their populations are stable. Conversely, taxa classified as Lower Risk globally might be Critically Endangered within a particular region where numbers are very small or declining, perhaps only because they are at the margins of their global range. IUCN is still in the process of developing guidelines for the use of national red list categories.

12. Re-evaluation
Evaluation of taxa against the criteria should be carried out at appropriate intervals. This is especially important for taxa listed under Near Threatened, or Conservation Dependent, and for threatened species whose status is known or suspected to be deteriorating.

13. Transfer between categories
There are rules to govern the movement of taxa between categories. These are as follows: (A) A taxon may be moved from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat if none of the criteria of the higher category has been met for five years or more. (B) If the original classification is found to have been erroneous, the taxon may be transferred to the appropriate category or removed from the threatened categories altogether, without delay (but see Section 9). (C) Transfer from categories of lower to higher risk should be made without delay.

14. Problems of scale
Classification based on the sizes of geographic ranges or the patterns of habitat occupancy is complicated by problems of spatial scale. The finer the scale at which the distributions or habitats of taxa are mapped, the smaller the area will be that they are found to occupy. Mapping at finer scales reveals more areas in which the taxon is unrecorded. It is impossible to provide any strict but general rules for mapping taxa or habitats; the most appropriate scale will depend on the taxa in question, and the origin and comprehensiveness of the distributional data. However, the thresholds for some criteria (e.g. Critically Endangered) necessitate mapping at a fine scale.

3) Definitions

1. Population
Population is defined as the total number of individuals of the taxon. For functional reasons, primarily owing to differences between life-forms, population numbers are expressed as numbers of mature individuals only. In the case of taxa obligately dependent on other taxa for all or part of their life cycles, biologically appropriate values for the host taxon should be used.

2. Subpopulations
Subpopulations are defined as geographically or otherwise distinct groups in the population between which there is little exchange (typically one successful migrant individual or gamete per year or less).

3. Mature individuals
The number of mature individuals is defined as the number of individuals known, estimated or inferred to be capable of reproduction. When estimating this quantity the following points should be borne in mind:

4. Generation
Generation may be measured as the average age of parents in the population. This is greater than the age at first breeding, except in taxa where individuals breed only once.

5. Continuing decline
A continuing decline is a recent, current or projected future decline whose causes are not known or not adequately controlled and so is liable to continue unless remedial measures are taken. Natural fluctuations will not normally count as a continuing decline, but an observed decline should not be considered to be part of a natural fluctuation unless there is evidence for this.

6. Reduction
A reduction (criterion A) is a decline in the number of mature individuals of at least the amount (%) stated over the time period (years) specified, although the decline need not still be continuing. A reduction should not be interpreted as part of a natural fluctuation unless there is good evidence for this. Downward trends that are part of natural fluctuations will not normally count as a reduction.

7. Extreme fluctuations
Extreme fluctuations occur in a number of taxa where population size or distribution area varies widely, rapidly and frequently, typically with a variation greater than one order of magnitude (i.e., a tenfold increase or decrease).

8. Severely fragmented
Severely fragmented is refers to the situation where increased extinction risks to the taxon result from the fact that most individuals within a taxon are found in small and relatively isolated subpopulations. These small subpopulations may go extinct, with a reduced probability of recolonisation.

9. Extent of occurrence
Extent of occurrence is defined as the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence of a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. This measure may exclude discontinuities or disjunctions within the overall distributions of taxa (e.g., large areas of obviously unsuitable habitat) (but see ‘area of occupancy’). Extent of occurrence can often be measured by a minimum convex polygon (the smallest polygon in which no internal angle exceeds 180 degrees and which contains all the sites of occurrence).

10. Area of occupancy
Area of occupancy is defined as the area within its ‘extent of occurrence’ (see definition) which is occupied by a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. The measure reflects the fact that a taxon will not usually occur throughout the area of its extent of occurrence, which may, for example, contain unsuitable habitats. The area of occupancy is the smallest area essential at any stage to the survival of existing populations of a taxon (e.g. colonial nesting sites, feeding sites for migratory taxa). The size of the area of occupancy will be a function of the scale at which it is measured, and should be at a scale appropriate to relevant biological aspects of the taxon. The criteria include values in km2, and thus to avoid errors in classification, the area of occupancy should be measured on grid squares (or equivalents) which are sufficiently small (see Figure 1).

gif -- Data Map

11. Location
Location defines a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single event (e.g. pollution) will soon affect all individuals of the taxon present. A location usually, but not always, contains all or part of a subpopulation of the taxon, and is typically a small proportion of the taxon’s total distribution.

12. Quantitative analysis
A quantitative analysis is defined here as the technique of population viability analysis (PVA), or any other quantitative form of analysis, which estimates the extinction probability of a taxon or population based on the known life history and specified management or non-management options. In presenting the results of quantitative analyses the structural equations and the data should be explicit (Figure 2). Two examples of the distinction between extent of occurrence and area of occupancy. (a) is the spatial distribution of known, inferred or projected sites of occurrence. (b) shows one possible boundary to the extent of occurrence, which is the measured area within this boundary. (c) shows one measure of area of occupancy which can be measured by the sum of the occupied grid squares.

4) The Categories 1

EXTINCT (EX)
A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died.

EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW)
A taxon is Extinct in the wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised population (or populations) well outside the past range. A taxon is presumed extinct in the wild when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form.

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)
A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to E) on pages and .

ENDANGERED (EN)
A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to E) on pages and .

VULNERABLE (VU)
A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to D) on pages and .

LOWER RISK (LR)
A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. Taxa included in the Lower Risk category can be separated into three subcategories:

  1. Conservation Dependent (cd). Taxa which are the focus of a continuing taxon-specific or habitat-specific conservation programme targeted towards the taxon in question, the cessation of which would result in the taxon qualifying for one of the threatened categories above within a period of five years.
  2. Near Threatened (nt). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent, but which are close to qualifying for Vulnerable.
  3. Least Concern (lc). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent or Near Threatened.
DATA DEFICIENT (DD)
A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status. A taxon in this category may be well studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution is lacking. Data Deficient is therefore not a category of threat or Lower Risk. Listing of taxa in this category indicates that more information is required and acknowledges the possibility that future research will show that threatened classification is appropriate. It is important to make positive use of whatever data are available. In many cases great care should be exercised in choosing between DD and threatened status. If the range of a taxon is suspected to be relatively circumscribed, if a considerable period of time has elapsed since the last record of the taxon, threatened status may well be justified.

NOT EVALUATED (NE)
A taxon is Not Evaluated when it is has not yet been assessed against the criteria.

gif -- Category Flow Chart

5) The Criteria for Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)
A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as defined by any of the following criteria (A to E):
  1. Population reduction in the form of either of the following:
    1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected reduction of at least 80% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of the following:
      1. direct observation
      2. an index of abundance appropriate for the taxon
      3. a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat
      4. actual or potential levels of exploitation
      5. the effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.
    2. A reduction of at least 80%, projected or suspected to be met within the next ten years or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b), (c), (d) or (e) above.
  2. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 100 km2 or area of occupancy estimated to be less than 10 km2, and estimates indicating any two of the following:
    1. Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
    2. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:
      1. extent of occurrence
      2. area of occupancy
      3. area, extent and/or quality of habitat
      4. number of locations or subpopulations
      5. number of mature individuals.
    3. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
      1. extent of occurrence
      2. area of occupancy
      3. number of locations or subpopulations
      4. number of mature individuals.
  3. Population estimated to number less than 250 mature individuals and either:
    1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 25% within 3 years or one generation, whichever is longer or
    2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature individuals and population structure in the form of either:
      1. severely fragmented (i.e. no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 50 mature individuals)
      2. all individuals are in a single subpopulation.
  4. Population estimated to number less than 50 mature individuals.
  5. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 50% within 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is the longer.
ENDANGERED (EN)
A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the following criteria (A to E):
  1. Population reduction in the form of either of the following:
    1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected reduction of at least 50% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of the following:
      1. direct observation
      2. an index of abundance appropriate for the taxon
      3. a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat
      4. actual or potential levels of exploitation
      5. the effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.
    2. A reduction of at least 50%, projected or suspected to be met within the next ten years or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b), (c), (d), or (e) above.
  2. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 5000 km2 or area of occupancy estimated to be less than 500 km2, and estimates indicating any two of the following:
    1. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than five locations.
    2. Continuing decline, inferred, observed or projected, in any of the following:
      1. extent of occurrence
      2. area of occupancy
      3. area, extent and/or quality of habitat
      4. number of locations or subpopulations
      5. number of mature individuals.
    3. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
      1. extent of occurrence
      2. area of occupancy
      3. number of locations or subpopulations
      4. number of mature individuals.
  3. Population estimated to number less than 2500 mature individuals and either:
    1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 20% within 5 years or 2 generations, whichever is longer, or
    2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature individuals and population structure in the form of either:
      1. severely fragmented (i.e. no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 250 mature individuals)
      2. all individuals are in a single subpopulation.
  4. Population estimated to number less than 250 mature individuals.
  5. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20 years or 5 generations, whichever is the longer.
VULNERABLE (VU)
A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as defined by any of the following criteria (A to E):
  1. Population reduction in the form of either of the following:
    1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected reduction of at least 20% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer,, based on (and specifying) any of the following:
      1. direct observation
      2. an index of abundance appropriate for the taxon
      3. a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat
      4. actual or potential levels of exploitation
      5. the effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.
    2. A reduction of at least 20%, projected or suspected to be met within the next ten years or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b), (c), (d) or (e) above.
  2. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 20,000 km2 or area of occupancy estimated to be less than 2000 km2, and estimates indicating any two of the following:
    1. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than ten locations.
    2. Continuing decline, inferred, observed or projected, in any of the following:
      1. extent of occurrence
      2. area of occupancy
      3. area, extent and/or quality of habitat
      4. number of locations or subpopulations
      5. number of mature individuals.
    3. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
      1. extent of occurrence
      2. area of occupancy
      3. number of locations or subpopulations
      4. number of mature individuals.
  3. Population estimated to number less than 10,000 mature individuals and either:
    1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 10% within 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is longer, or
    2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature individuals and population structure in the form of either:
      1. severely fragmented (i.e. no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 1000 mature individuals)
      2. all individuals are in a single subpopulation.
  4. Population very small or restricted in the form of either of the following:
    1. Population estimated to number less than 1000 mature individuals.
    2. Population is characterised by an acute restriction in its area of occupancy (typically less than 100 km2) or in the number of locations (typically less than 5). Such a taxon would thus be prone to the effects of human activities (or stochastic events whose impact is increased by human activities) within a very short period of time in an unforeseeable future, and is thus capable of becoming Critically Endangered or even Extinct in a very short period.
  5. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 10% within 100 years.
1Note: As in previous IUCN categories, the abbreviation of each category (in parenthesis) follows the English denominations when translated into other languages.
Previous Section--Appendix 2: Crane Working Groups
Return to Contents
Next Section--Appendix 4: Preparing National Crane Action Plans

Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

Take Pride in America logo USA.gov logo U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/cranes/app3.htm
Page Contact Information: Webmaster
Page Last Modified: Friday, 01-Feb-2013 19:05:29 EST
Sioux Falls, SD [sdww55]