There’s good news and bad news to process with this piece. The good news is, you are thinking in terms of actual poems. The easiest way to determine this is that, with a couple of exceptions, were you to remove the line breaks and reflow it as simple sentences and paragraphs, it would be a awkward read. The sad truth is that much of which passes for poetry these days, including what is published, is nothing more than insightful bits of prose, hacked up into irregular lines that offer no justification for breaking where they do, and no seeming awareness that there is a reason poetry exists in its own category apart from prose. Not only are they different, one is specifically everything the other is not. I don’t want to lard up this critique with a lot of theory, but, if I do say so myself, this little essay of mine, "Thoughts On Poetry"  might go a long way towards sorting out what I feel the differences to be, and why.

The bottom line—there’s still a lot of prose thinking in this piece. One crucial distinction would be to think of the job of prose as to describe an experience, to explain it, to allow us to understand what took place, and to allow us to comprehend what happened. Prose is always in the service of some external priority. A poem, particularly one dealing with such a subjective experience, requires a different relationship between subject, and the surface content of the words. It’s the language of narration vs. the language of immediacy. Rather than explain the experience, placing a narrative buffer between reader and the moment, you should seek to evoke that experience, make it exist for the reader, make your experience theirs as well.

The psychological state you are dealing with isn’t a logical one; by definition, it can’t be explained. So you might start by identifying all instances of “explaining,” points where you tell us about something, even spoon feed the desired interpretation to the reader rather than letting their understanding rise from their own experience.

First on the chopping block: the last lines of your first two stanzas. You use lines like this when you suspect that you haven’t done the job with sharp images, sense data and poetic language, so you try to compensate with a prosaic explanation. Truth is, you haven’t done a bad job as it is—better in the first stanza than the second (We’ll get to that next), but in both cases, you’ve provided images that, wrapped as they are in the context provided by your title, make the point nicely.

That’s the thing about poetry; cut loose from the need to make prosaic, linear, cause and effect sense, you don’t need to include everything. You only need to use language to its maximum potential to achieve your result.

Stanza two brings more narration, as well as further instances of your own intrusion into the mix. I stand... I gasp... I hide... while there’s nothing inaccurate about including yourself, in these cases they entail more narration, telling, inserting that narrative buffer between the reader and the experience. We aren’t experiencing it, we’re listening to you tell us about you experiencing it. Rule of Thumb: this is your poem, you’re the one doing the experiencing. We’ll assume, unless specifically told otherwise, that you’re included.. In other words, if you present us with ... a wooded area /
Trees hidden by a dense cold fog... we’ll assume you’re the one standing there.

Stanza two has more abstract narrative elements. Occasionally... I gasp with hope... knowing it will quickly fade... note too, there’s nothing here to engage the senses. I suppose one might hear you gasp, but such language is generally devoid of imagistic interest. And, of course, there’s the offending last line. On further reading I’d say your final lines in all your stanzas are pretty much the same: offering explanations that shouldn’t be necessary, and that won’t do the job, in any event.

I’m not going to parse the whole poem, since my comments will remain pretty much the same.

Look forward crisp images, hard sense data that readers ca see, hear, taste, touch. Such images will do the heavy lifting for you and eliminate the need to explain.