RedactedNarrative: On August 12, 2016 at approximately 1930 hours, I Officer of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) was on state water patrol in Monroe County, Florida when I received a call from our dispatch center in regards to a boating accident that occurred underneath the Teatable Key Channel Bridge of US-1. 
  
  I responded to the scene in a marked FWC vessel and made contact with Vessel 1 (FL 5029 PP) which was in the intercostal waterway near Shell Key. I approached Vessel 1 and activated the blue lights. 
  
  I asked Operator1 what happened and why he left the scene of the accident. Operator1 stated to me in broken English that he was trying to get under the Teatable Bridge in his 60' vessel and that when he approached the bridge he realized that he did not have enough clearance to make it. That is when he backed up his vessel and struck the rear port side of his vessel with the bridge piling. 
  
  The boat then ricocheted off the piling causing the bow of his vessel to swing to the starboard side and striking Vessel 2 (FL 7620 RC) on the starboard side of his. 
  
  operator2 and his family were anchored under the bridge fishing at the time of the accident. Operator2 tried to explain to Operator1 while he was trying to go under the bridge that he was not going to fit and that he needed to go down to a higher bridge. Once Operator1 realized he was not going to fit under the bridge that is when he backed into the bridge and hitting Vessel 2. Operator1 did not feel as if he had struck Vessel 2 but asked if everyone on board was ok on Vessel 1. Operator1 is from France and had not been down to Monroe County before and did not know the area very well. Operator1 also stated to me that his English is not very good and that he could not understand what Operator2 was saying that is where there was confusion as to why he left the scene due to the fact he was unsure of what Operator2 was trying to say. After the accident I inspected the bridge to see the extent of the damage. There was very minimal damage and no structural damage done to the bridge. There was gel coat and fiberglass transfer on the piling. No further action is  taken at this time.
  
  
  Operator1 was charged with the following:
  
  327.33(2) Careless operation in regards to US Coast Guard Navigation Rule 5, failure to maintain lookout.