ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Tuesday vetoed a proposed offshore liquefied natural gas project 16 miles off the coast of Asbury Park, saying the plan is too risky to the state's crucial tourism and fishing industries.

Christie used his veto power under the federal Deepwater Port Act to scuttle a proposal by Liberty Natural Gas LLC to build an offshore terminal that would take in liquefied natural gas from ships, turn it back into gas form and carry it to the shore through 44 miles of submerged pipeline. It also would use more than nine miles of onshore pipeline between Perth Amboy and Linden.

"I take very seriously our obligation to protect the environmental health of our coastal waters," Christie said. "Offshore LNG poses unacceptable risks to the state's residents, natural resources, economy and security. We must ensure that our (127) miles of shoreline remain an economic driver for tourism, and that our fishing and shellfish industries remain healthy and productive now and for future generations."

Environmentalists were delighted by the veto.

"This is just a great day for the ocean," said Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, which had vehemently opposed the plan along with most of the state's major environmental groups. "It took so long to win this fight, a total David-and-Goliath fight, huge foreign companies literally looming off our coast. It just shows you what can be accomplished by the power of the people and by leadership. The governor has, in effect, rescued the ocean from this industrial attack."

"This is the wrong project in the wrong place," added Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. "Not only will this facility bring in more fossil fuel, but it will undercut New Jersey's progress toward a renewable energy future."

And David Pringle, director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said Christie's veto "keeps New Jersey's eyes on the prize."

"Environmentally and economically, we need to be developing clean renewable energy and becoming more energy efficient instead of relying on dirty and dangerous options like liquid natural gas on the Jersey shore," he said.

Liberty's plan was the last of three proposed offshore gas projects in New Jersey waters to remain under consideration. ExxonMobil Corp. had proposed a floating gas terminal called BlueOcean Energy about 20 miles off the coast of Manasquan, and The Atlantic Sea Island Group wanted to build a 63-acre artificial island nearly 20 miles off Sandy Hook for a liquefied natural gas port called "Safe Harbor Energy."

Tittel said declining market conditions for natural gas led to both those applications being withdrawn.

Liberty's plan was designed to transport up to 2.4 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas from the deep water port to shore. The company says that's enough to fuel 5 million homes.

Liberty said its facility would rest on the ocean floor when it's not being used, and would be far enough offshore so that it would not be visible to beachgoers, even when it was being utilized. It had hoped to have the project up and running by 2014.

It had projected creating 1,000 jobs during construction and installation of the deep water port, with a permanent payroll of $5.4 million a year for "jobs that will stay in New Jersey." The company said it would pay federal, state and local taxes in excess of $52 million a year.

The company said it hopes it can prevail upon state and federal officials to let it change its plan to address any concerns they may have.

"We think the truth shall set us free," said Roger Whelan, Liberty's president. "We're hopeful we'll be allowed to get our message out. The issue is whether the state and federal parties will let us proceed to change our project as needed."

Zipf said Liberty faces a long and difficult road in trying to reverse Christie's rejection of the plan.

"This project is dead in the water," she said. "They can try to fight it, but I don't think there has been a case when a company has overcome a governor's veto."

Whelan said Liberty is focused on pressing its case before the U.S. Maritime Administration and had not yet considered an appeal to the courts.

In addition to its potential impact on tourism and fishing, Christie said the proposal's drawbacks include its proximity to large population centers; potential discharges of harmful wastewater into the environment, as well as increased homeland security demands on the U.S. Coast Guard and New Jersey's Homeland Security personnel to deal with potential environmental disasters and the disruption of port commerce