Estimates of groundwater circulation depths based on field data are lacking. These data are critical to inform and refine hydrogeologic models of mountainous watersheds, and to quantify depth and time dependencies of weathering processes in watersheds. Here we test two competing hypotheses on the role of geology and geologic setting in deep groundwater circulation and the role of deep groundwater in the geochemical evolution of streams and springs. We test these hypotheses in two mountainous watersheds that have distinctly different geologic settings (one crystalline, metamorphic bedrock and the other volcanic bedrock). Estimated circulation depths for springs in both watersheds range from 0.6 to 1.6 km and may be as great as 2.5 km. These estimated groundwater circulation depths are much deeper than commonly modeled depths suggesting that we may be forcing groundwater flow paths too shallow in models. In addition, the spatial relationships of groundwater circulation depths are different between the two watersheds. Groundwater circulation depths in the crystalline bedrock watershed increase with decreasing elevation indicative of topography‐driven groundwater flow. This relationship is not present in the volcanic bedrock watershed suggesting that both the source of fracturing (tectonic versus volcanic) and increased primary porosity in the volcanic bedrock play a role in deep groundwater circulation. The results from the crystalline bedrock watershed also indicate that relatively deep groundwater circulation can occur at local scales in headwater drainages less than 9.0 km2 and at larger fractions than commonly perceived. Deep groundwater is a primary control on streamflow processes and solute concentrations in both watersheds.

While sensitivity analysis and calibration are common practice in integrated hydrologic modeling, little work has been done to understand how the design of the sensitivity analysis and calibration affects the simulation outcome in these often highly nonlinear models. This is especially true for irrigated agricultural basins with a strong connection between land use, groundwater, and surface water. Using a range rather than a single set of initial parameter values, multiple sensitivity analyses, calibrations, and linearity tests were performed using UCODE_2014 on the Scott Valley Integrated Hydrologic Model. Calibration results show that parameters related to crop demand and applied irrigation water are most sensitive. Influence statistics show that low streamflow observations provide the most information during model calibration, indicating preference should be given to these observations during model development, sensitivity analysis, and calibration. Importantly, due to the nonlinearity of the integrated model, significant differences are found in results when initial parameter values are sampled from within their respective expected ranges. Estimates for some parameters varied up to an order of magnitude between calibrations, while all produced similar final objective function values, groundwater elevations, and stream flow. Confidence intervals for individual sensitivity analyses and calibration runs only spanned a fraction of the ensemble estimated parameter range across multiple runs. Our work suggests that a calibration design with multiple sensitivity analyses and calibrations of integrated hydrologic models, each using one of several widely varying sets of initial values, provides a frugal approach to identify parameters across the global parameter space.

anagement of California's water supplies serves diverse goals. Securing the needs of urban and agricultural water customers is a key goal. Meeting environmental health, ecosystem services and stream water quality goals has also been an integral part of many California water management systems. To meet this range of goals, groundwater, soil water and surface water will need to be managed conjunctively, management will likely become more tightly linked with land use and land resources planning and management, and modelling will play a key role in the development of successful and useful management plans. The 2014 California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and recent salt-and nitraterelated regulations to protect groundwater quality have put a focus on groundwater resources management, both quality and quantity, particularly in agricultural regions (Harter 2015). They mandate that local agencies pursue groundwater sustainability goals: avoiding longterm groundwater storage depletion, land subsidence,