V.A. Is Faulted Over Deterioration of Landmarks WASHINGTON - Hundreds of landmark buildings where wounded soldiers have received treatment, some dating back to the Civil War, are at risk of being abandoned or demolished because of poor management by officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs, preservationists said in a report released on Thursday. "Unfortunately, the care provided to these historic treasures - places which have more than proven their worth as settings for the healing and nurturing of today's wounded veterans - is far from adequate and has reached crisis proportions," the report commissioned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation said. The veterans affairs agency is the custodian of 2,008 historic hospitals, residences, farms and cemeteries spread from New York to Hawaii, including 11 campuses built immediately after the Civil War. But half of them "sit vacant and deteriorating" while the agency plans to spend more than $10 billion on new facilities to meet increased demands for its services, the report said. The study asks top officials to commit to saving the agency's historic buildings, to expand its two-member preservation staff and provide it with more resources, and to work with private developers and stakeholders outside the government on plans to reuse and save the buildings. "They have these buildings which were some of the finest in the country when they were built for medical care," said David J. Brown, the chief preservation officer for the National Trust. And yet there seems to be an inherent bias against historic buildings in the V.A.'s plans moving forward. Over the next four years, the agency plans to demolish 535 buildings, many likely to be historic structures because of their age and condition, the report said. The agency also plans a spree of new construction to meet a spike in demand for medical care and housing for veterans of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, it faces pressure from the federal government to consolidate its real estate holdings. The Veterans Affairs agency did not respond to several requests for comment. However, in a statement provided to The Associated Press on Wednesday, the agency said it was reviewing the study's recommendations. "The Department of Veterans Affairs takes seriously its responsibility to care for historic buildings in its custody as we carry out our mission to provide the quality care and benefits veterans have earned and deserved," the agency said. The report says the agency does not always follow provisions in the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act that require the agency to involve veterans, local communities, preservationists and other stakeholders when deciding the fate of historic structures. Instead, the agency often notifies interested groups late in the planning process, sometimes after structures have been demolished to make way for new facilities, Mr. Brown said. "They're making their decisions and then they're coming back and doing this as a last-minute review," he said. That doesn't fulfill the spirit or the letter of the law in terms of considering the historic character of those buildings and looking at future decisions around the disposition of those buildings. Mr. Brown also said that many of the older facilities were designed by renowned architects and sit on large campuses that provided idyllic settings for veterans to recover after returning from war, in contrast to newer sites planned on smaller plots in urban areas. Among the examples cited in the study is the agency's plan to close the 105-year-old Battle Mountain Sanitarium, a National Historic Landmark in Hot Springs, S.D., and build a new facility in Rapid City. Mr. Brown said the plan would force veterans to travel longer distances to receive care and would remove the town's single-largest employer. Local veterans, communities and members of Congress have all called on the agency to reconsider closing the facility. "We're wasting taxpayer dollars when we say we're just going to leave this campus and build an entirely new facility 60 miles away that the vets don't want in the area, the congressional delegation doesn't want, but the V.A. has said it's necessary," Mr. Brown said.