Abstract The construction of beaver dams facilitates a suite of hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic, and ecological feedbacks that increase stream complexity and channel–floodplain connectivity that benefit aquatic and terrestrial biota. Depending on where beaver build dams within a drainage network, they impact lateral and longitudinal connectivity by introducing roughness elements that fundamentally change the timing, delivery, and storage of water, sediment, nutrients, and organic matter. While the local effects of beaver dams on streams are well understood, broader coverage network models that predict where beaver dams can be built and highlight their impacts on connectivity across diverse drainage networks are lacking. Here we present a capacity model to assess the limits of riverscapes to support dam-building activities by beaver across physiographically diverse landscapes. We estimated dam capacity with freely and nationally-available inputs to evaluate seven lines of evidence: (1) reliable water source, (2) riparian vegetation conducive to foraging and dam building, (3) vegetation within 100 m of edge of stream to support expansion of dam complexes and maintain large colonies, (4) likelihood that channel-spanning dams could be built during low flows, (5) the likelihood that a beaver dam is likely to withstand typical floods, (6) a suitable stream gradient that is neither too low to limit dam density nor too high to preclude the building or persistence of dams, and (7) a suitable river that is not too large to restrict dam building or persistence. Fuzzy inference systems were used to combine these controlling factors in a framework that explicitly also accounts for model uncertainty. The model was run for 40,561 km of streams in Utah, USA, and portions of surrounding states, predicting an overall network capacity of 356,294 dams at an average capacity of 8.8 dams/km. We validated model performance using 2852 observed dams across 1947 km of streams. The model showed excellent agreement with observed dam densities where beaver dams were present. Model performance was spatially coherent and logical, with electivity indices that effectively segregated capacity categories. That is, beaver dams were not found where the model predicted no dams could be supported, beaver avoided segments that were predicted to support rare or occasional densities, and beaver preferentially occupied and built dams in areas predicted to have pervasive dam densities. The resulting spatially explicit reach-scale (250 m long reaches) data identifies where dam-building activity is sustainable, and at what densities dams can occur across a landscape. As such, model outputs can be used to determine where channel–floodplain and wetland connectivity are likely to persist or expand by promoting increases in beaver dam densities.