PHF Controller described a go around event initiated by an aircraft on final for Runway 7 when observing traffic on a short right base for Runway 2; the reporter indicating appropriate intersection separation was maintained.

Narrative

Land Runway 7/2 intersecting runway operation; NOTAM out for PHF stating Taxiway 'G' closed; Taxiway 'D' closed from Taxiway 'G' to ILS critical area. Therefore; aircraft landing Runway 7 have to back taxi if landing full length. A C172 called from the east requesting touch-and-gos. At this point I notice a string of aircraft inbound for PHF. I stated to the C172 unable touch-and-gos; but can offer a full stop taxi back. [I] instructed the C172 to enter right down wind for Runway 2. First plane was a Citation and landed with no problem and turned off runway. I made a blanket broadcast reiterating the NOTAM TAXIWAY closures. By then the C172 was a beam numbers Runway 2; so he was issued Runway 2 cleared for option with traffic; a LJ35 5M final. The LJ35 was then told about the C172 on a short right base for Runway 2. The LJ35 reported Cesena traffic in sight. Once the Cessna was over the numbers; the LJ35 was on a half mile final and said that he was executing a missed approach. From all controllers' judgment in the tower; the Cesena traffic would have been through the intersection long before the LJ35 crossed the threshold of Runway 7. Recommendation: after the situation was resolved; the CIC found out that the Approach Control had no idea the Tower had to back taxi. I recommend IDS-4 equipment at the Tower so that the Tower may update it and keep Approach aware of constant changes. If Approach was aware of the closures; maybe they could have given more space between aircraft.