USGS Confirms Reviewed Magnitude of 3.91 for San Leandro Earthquake
The United States Geological Survey has finalized its magnitude review for the August 13 earthquake north of San Leandro, California.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 6:27 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 6:56 p.m. ET
USGS Assigns Green Impact Estimate to San Leandro Earthquake
The United States Geological Survey has assigned a green estimated impact level to the magnitude 3.91 earthquake near San Leandro, California, indicating that no significant casualties or damage are estimated to be likely.
According to United States Geological Survey records, the reviewed earthquake occurred on August 13, 2026, at a shallow depth of 5.2 km, centered 4 km north of San Leandro, California.
USGS records show 2,856 people reported feeling the earthquake. The event recorded a community intensity of 4.1 and an instrument intensity of 4.3. A tsunami evaluation was not flagged.
Aug 19, 2026, 6:27 p.m. ETFirst report
Magnitude 3.91 Earthquake Strikes Near San Leandro, California
A developing situation is underway following a magnitude 3.91 earthquake that struck 4 km north of San Leandro, California, on August 13, 2026, at 15:30:04 UTC, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The reviewed earthquake occurred at a shallow depth of 5.2 km. United States Geological Survey data shows an instrument intensity of 4.3 and a community intensity of 4.1, with 2856 people submitting felt reports.
The United States Geological Survey assigned an estimated impact level of green, meaning no significant casualties or damage are estimated to be likely. A tsunami evaluation was not flagged.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 22:56current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 22:27current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 23:23current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.