seamount layers mislabeled in scenarios

[bbest]

From @mvisalli:

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:16 PM Morgan Visalli mvisalli@ucsb.edu wrote:
Ben please correct me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly but I believe the seamount reporting statistics are incorrectly labeled for the 3 depth classes in the scenario outputs. I was trying to figure out how scenario 4 was able to capture so much of the >800m seamounts when they were so widely distributed and then realized that the labeling is probably wrong because it says that 73% of seamounts >800m was captured by an absolute value of only 84

I'm correcting this now on our scenarios proposed for manuscript but be aware that labeling is likely incorrect in all previous scenario outputs.