From the Wikipedia article on the Moon: "[...]increase of the mean Earth-Moon distance of about 3.8 m per century[...]".
I'm sorry, but how do you plan to feel the effects of that?
First, there's a lot or regolith. It covers the whole surface of the moon, having a thickness of up to 20m. So, you complain that we plan to use the regolith to help astronauts survive in the Moon's harsh environment, but you don't care about our sand being used to make a lot of things, from glass to concrete? Plus, the regolith would be used in way smaller quantities than sand here on Earth.
We haven't reached a level of technological advancement that'd allow 'resources' mined outside our for lower prices. And that won't change for decades yet to come.
As for fuel, which one do you think is the best alternative: send fuel from Earth, or produce fuel on the Moon? It's actually worst to send fuel from here than produce there: again, from Wikipedia (gotta love it), "The propellant mixture in each SRB [Space Shuttle Booster] motor consists of ammonium perchlorate, [...] aluminum [...], iron oxide [...]. This propellant is commonly referred to as Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, or simply APCP.". And from the APCP page: "The exhaust from APCP solid rocket motors contain mostly water, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and a metal oxide[...]. The hydrogen chloride can easily dissociate into water and create corrosive hydrochloric acid, [...] biasing the pH of local water and rainfall". You choose, harm the Earth, or the Moon, but fuel will be needed, that's for sure.
And, harmful underground bases?