Part of the regional summary: Anguilla
More about this place: Anguilla on Wikipedia

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.
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.
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).
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: 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.
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.
No independent survey was made at this exact site; the nearest ones are listed in the table below.
| Method | Hard-coral cover (%) |
|---|---|
| In-house DINOv3 | 14.7 |
| CoralSCOP unedited | 16.5 |
| Claude | 6.2 |
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.
| Agency | Site / location | Date | Hard coral cover (%) | Distance | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | transect 25024 | 2013 | 2.7% | 2.12 km | — |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | transect 25018 | 2013 | 2.8% | 4.78 km | — |
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.