clams per square foot. Manila clams are the only species for which the district court made such a finding. Because there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding, we conclude that the district court clearly erred. No witness gave an opinion as to the density of manila clams necessary for a successful commercial harvest. No document in the record sets forth any analysis of what density is necessary for commercial success. There is a document in the record which purports to show the densities of twelve manila clam beds leased from the State of Washington, but twelve beds is far too small and unrepresentative a sample of commercial beds to support a reliable finding of fact. See, e.g., National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 434 n. 52 (D.C.Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Moreover, there is no
holding that a warrant to obtain a blood sample was valid despite a reference to a urine sample in the addendum to the affidavit because the minor inconsistency did not seriously undermine the information underlying the probable cause determination holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital recognizing problems with generalizing from an extremely limited sample when a broader sample  can be readily obtained and when no showing of the representativeness of the sample is made holding that a test of a urine sample implicates the fourth amendment holding blood sample does not constitute compelled testimony