Coral Reef Diagnostics

Anguilla - Catheley H

⬇ Download this page as a report card
05
Photo: Anderson Mayfield/Coral Reef Diagnostics
Country
Survey date(s)
2026-03-02
Coordinates
18.2105, -63.0935
Published dive-site position.
Coral cover
6.2%
Claude computer vision (108 photos) · other methods below
Observations
shipwreck
Heat stress
Today’s heat load
16 Sep 2026 · Alert Level 1
5-year thermal stress load
5-year mean max. degree heating weeks (DHW)
2021–2025
NOAA Coral Reef Watch — Leeward Caribbean Islands virtual station
i 5-year mean max. DHW is the mean of the annual maximum DHWs over the five complete years named above, not conditions today.
More infoLeeward Caribbean Islands (NOAA CRW virtual station) · Eastern Caribbean ecoregion mean=13.1°C-heating weeks
Photographs
52
Site summary

Catheley H is part reef, part reclaimed junkyard - derelict fish traps, concrete rings, and pilings now crowded with brain and boulder corals, with a nurse shark tucked in a swim-through and lobsters sheltering nearby. A blind Claude computer-vision point count puts coral cover around 6.2%. Wreck and artificial-structure site: this cover value counts coral growing on man-made structure (steel, concrete, wreck debris) and the bottom around it, so it isn't comparable with natural-reef cover or with regional averages.

Max. depth dived
17.9 m
dive-log maximum
Water temp. during survey
26.0°C
-2.1°C vs the 12 months to 2026-08 mean sea temperature (28.1°C)
Bottom time
50 min
in at 09:11

Two independent survey stations shown with the program’s logo — click one to see how far it is from this site.

One other CRD dive site within 5 km shown in orange — click a marker to open its page.

12 of these 52 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

124567891213141617192021222324252627303233343537404243444547495051535455

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

Catheley H is one of Anguilla's more curious dives — a patchwork of natural rock and rubble seafloor threaded with derelict fish traps, stacked concrete rings, and a pair of upright pilings that has slowly become its own small reef (e.g., Image 3, Image 15, Image 41, Image 48).

It is equal parts reef and reclaimed junkyard, a reminder of how quickly the Caribbean seafloor puts anything — concrete, wire, or coral rubble — to work (e.g., Image 11, Image 38, Image 39).

General benthic features

Chunky brain corals and boulder corals, likely Montastraea, Orbicella, and Pseudodiploria, crowd both the rock and the human-made structure, while a lionfish lurks at the base of one piling and a ray glides past early in the dive (e.g., Image 10, Image 28, Image 36, Image 46, Image 52).

Coral cover

Coral cover: 6.2% — a blind Claude computer-vision point count of 108 of Anderson's unedited photographs (20 points per photo; water, fish, and obstructions excluded). Other computer-vision methods are listed in the method table. Wreck and artificial-structure site: this cover value counts coral growing on man-made structure (steel, concrete, wreck debris) and the bottom around it, so it isn't comparable with natural-reef cover or with regional averages.

Fish and other fauna

Peer into one of the rocky swim-throughs and a nurse shark may be tucked inside, with a pair of spiny lobsters sheltering beneath an overhang nearby.

Comparisons with other data

No independent survey was made at this exact site; the nearest ones are listed in the table below.

CV model comparison

As of September 2026 no computer-vision method estimates coral cover accurately on new images, so treat this as indicative rather than a measurement; it is revised as the methods improve.
Headline: Claude computer vision — a blind point count of this site's own photographs (Anderson, 2026-09-27: Claude CV is the main coral-cover value).
More infoDINOv3 and CoralSCOP were run on the same photos and are listed for comparison. Coralscapes v2 and v1 were also run but are not shown: Anderson does not consider Coralscapes reliable for these photos. No diver transect exists for this trip, so agreement between the rows is not accuracy, and as of September 2026 no computer-vision method estimates coral cover accurately on new images; treat every row as indicative.
MethodHard-coral cover (%)
In-house DINOv314.7
CoralSCOP unedited16.5
Claude6.2

Independent surveys nearby

Within 5 km, 2 independent survey stations recorded hard coral cover in 2013. The most recent nearby survey is from 2013, so these values predate recent heat stress. This site's own estimate (6.2%) is indistinguishable from the range of these surveys (2.7–2.8%): the 3.4-point gap is inside the ±7 percentage-point noise between methods; the methods differ, so the comparison is context, not a like-for-like test.

Collected by other programs using different methods (the XL Catlin Seaview Survey uses photo-transects with automated image annotation), so these are context for the figures above, not a like-for-like comparison. Where a station was surveyed more than once the range is shown. Station names are not dive-site names.

Independent survey data near this site
AgencySite / locationDateHard coral cover (%)DistanceLink
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 2502420132.7%2.12 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 2501820132.8%4.78 km—

Data & links

All images from Coral Reef Diagnostics. Data are from Coral Reef Diagnostics and the organizations named in the data-sources table above.

© Coral Reef Diagnostics.