Adding to the specifics of my Bishop message a better overview of the topography is provided by an overlay of the missed approach flight track on the 1:500,000 San Francisco visual sectional aeronautical chart:
http://tinyurl.com/3j338o9
This clearly shows the option to design the OEI flight path down the Owens Valley instead of encountering the mountains overflown in the TERPS missed approach procedure. If the engine failure occurred between MDA and PULIE, it very well may be better to have the OEI flight path depart the TERPS track at, or prior to, PULIE and continue down the valley.
Or, if the engine failure occurred well after PULIE it might be desirable to depart the TERPs track between TEVOC and NEBSE and proceed over lower terrain to the valley to the northeast.
The OEI assessment, just like a TERPs assessment, should be done on the best available topographic data. In the case of the US this is the USGS 1:24,000 topographic map. (I have found to my distress that some performance engineering entities do not use topographical data this good).
To the USGS topo map the procedures designer (for TERPs) or the performance engineer (for OEI) must plot and add all antennas or other structures of record. In the U.S. all such structures of 200' height or greater are recorded (lower heights close to the airport in accordance with the FAR 77 model).
The FAA has all of this high-fidelity and recorded structures in an automated system. And, they have all the TERPs design criteria semi-automated. Designing an OEI procedure in the U.S. would be far easier if the performance engineer had access to this FAA system (known as IAPA).
Here is a portion of the Bishop missed approach track at 1:24,000:
http://tinyurl.com/3l7jwsn