MEMORANDUM *

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) to more quickly release a supplemental environmental impact statement analyzing NIGC’s approval of Jamul Indian Village’s gaming management contract. Construction of the casino was not contingent on NIGC’s approval of the management contract, see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(9) (“An Indian tribe may enter into a management contract....” (emphasis added)), and NEPA therefore set no strict timetable for agency action in this case, see Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 715 F.2d 653, 658-59 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“Absent a precise statutory timetable or other factors counseling expeditious action, an agency’s control *690 over the timetable of [its action] is entitled to considerable deference,”).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA claim, and their contentions that defendants violated the state-tribal compact and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act are likewise without merit. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct.365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits.”).

3. To the extent plaintiffs contend that the land on which the Jamul casino is being built is not Indian land, circuit precedent forecloses that argument. See Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 789 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.