Look at the bolded part. MAY. Not "shall". You are talking about a voluntary decision that Treasury would have to make, not what a court can or will order.
I was wondering about this and reading it as written there really isn't an effective non-severability clause that would apply if something(NWS) was undone.
It does raise another question as to why they(Conservator) would give so much power to the treasury and not conserve/preserve the assets and property of the regulated enity. Another action that does not seem like an action of a Conservator. Likley a point more for the Lamberth case rather than the current SCOTUS case.