If you hit something, the energy dissipated is related by the square of the velocity. Hence, the impact at 59 knots stall speed has 12 times more energy to dissipate. (FYI, those other speeds have 34 and 112 times more energy.)
Just out of curiosity (and boredom) I decided to look up the relevant formula, plug in these numbers and see what I got.
v1^2 - v0^2 = 2ad, where:
v1 = initial velocity
v0 = terminal velocity
a = acceleration
d = distance travelled
In the vertical descent under a canopy case (17 knots as quoted = 8.75 m/s), my estimate is that the "crumple zone" is 0.5m - essentially the height of the landing gear. Assuming that the crumple zone crumples evenly, you are confronted with an acceleration of 76.56 m/s^2 or 7.6G. Very survivable, as multiple CAPS deployments have shown.
Now the horizontal arrest, where you fly the aircraft to a crash landing at stall speed (59 knots as quoted = 30 m/s). Assuming a "crumple zone" of 1m (essentially the engine compartment), you get an acceleration of 450 m/s^2, or 45G. Ouch.
But the latter is assuming you essentially hit a concrete wall at stall speed, and all you have to arrest your speed is the crumpling engine compartiment (which probably is not an all that good crumple zone to begin with). If you land in something that has a little more "give", like bushes, crops or something similar, and assume a landing distance of 10m, the acceleration goes down to 45 m/s^2, or 4.5G. Not bad actually.
So I'm not entirely sure if I agree to the "CAPS NOW" notion of EFATO between 500' and 2000'. It would definitely depend on the terrain below.
On the other hand - this discussion does show the benefit of CAPS. It gives you a choice in situations like this which other airframes don't give you. But in an emergency situation you can't spend a lot of time deciding what to do. So creating a contingency plan as part of the departure briefing, like you suggested, is the best course of action. And that should take into account the terrain.