several criteria concerning the defendant’s culpability, such as whether it “knew or had reason to know the violation existed” and its “record of compliance,” 10 V.S.A. § 8010(b)(3), (4), but on the whole, the factors reflect a primary legislative concern with protecting the public health and safety and preventing unjust enrichment at the expense of the State and the public. See id. § 8010(b)(1), (5), (7) (requiring consideration of “the degree of actual or potential impact on public health, safety, welfare and th dy under § 8221(b) is essentially equitable finds additional support in decisions from other states reaching the same conclusion in similar environmental-enforcement contexts. See, e.g., Comm’r of Envtl. Protection v. Conn. Bldg. Wrecking Co., 629 A.2d 1116, 1128 (Conn. 1993) (<HOLDING>); DiPirro, 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 748 (holding
holding that tull did not mandate a jury trial in a state environmentalenforcement action for injunctive relief and civil penalties where the civilpenalty statute contained multiple factors including equitable restitution and the legislatures statement of purpose emphasized the importance of protecting and maintaining the natural resources of the state and of preserving the status quo goals that were equitable  in nature holding that a preliminary injunction was a reasonable means of preserving the status quo and was of the same character as the ultimate relief sought when a few but not all of the causes of action in the complaint were of an equitable nature including causes of action for unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust holding that a jury trial was not required when the money demand although specific was incidental and ancillary to the equitable relief requested and would ripen only if equitable relief were granted holding that the relevant factors include the nature of the scheme the identity of the participants the quality frequency and duration of each conspirators transactions and the commonality of time and goals holding that the dismissal of a civil action in state court does not preclude a restitution order on the same claim